United States v. Sierra-Quezada

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Sierra-Quezada

288 F. App'x 410

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 5, 2008

DocketNo. 07-50236

StatusPublished

This text of 288 F. App'x 410 (United States v. Sierra-Quezada) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Sierra-Quezada, 288 F. App'x 410 (9th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Daniel Sierra-Quezada appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to two counts of distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He contends that the district court erred in denying him a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We review sentencing decisions for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 128 S.Ct. 2491, 171 L.Ed.2d 780 (2008). It is procedural error, and thus an abuse of discretion, for a district court to calculate the Sentencing Guidelines range incorrectly. Id. We review for clear error the district court’s factual determination whether a defendant is a minor participant in the criminal activity. United States v. Santana, 276 Fed.Appx. 629 (9th Cir.2008).

Sierra-Quezada contends that he was a minor participant because he was a middleman who was involved in the distribution of two small quantities of metham[411]*411phetamine over a 14-month period, made only $50 for each transaction, and was not the supplier of the drugs. He argues that he did not initiate the transactions; rather, they were initiated by an informant, who was seeking a larger deal. As stated by the district court, Sierra-Quezada facilitated two hand-to-hand sales, and the record does not show that his will was overborne by the informant. The district court did not clearly err in finding that Sierra-Quezada was not substantially less culpable than other pai’ticipants in the criminal activity. See United States v. Flores-Payon, 942 F.2d 556, 561 (9th Cir.1991) (holding that defendant who attended negotiations and brought drugs to scene was not entitled to downward adjustment under § 3B1.2).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

Daniel Sierra-Quezada appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to two counts of distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He contends that the district court erred in denying him a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We review sentencing decisions for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 128 S.Ct. 2491, 171 L.Ed.2d 780 (2008). It is procedural error, and thus an abuse of discretion, for a district court to calculate the Sentencing Guidelines range incorrectly. Id. We review for clear error the district court’s factual determination whether a defendant is a minor participant in the criminal activity. United States v. Santana, 276 Fed.Appx. 629 (9th Cir.2008).

Sierra-Quezada contends that he was a minor participant because he was a middleman who was involved in the distribution of two small quantities of metham[411]*411phetamine over a 14-month period, made only $50 for each transaction, and was not the supplier of the drugs. He argues that he did not initiate the transactions; rather, they were initiated by an informant, who was seeking a larger deal. As stated by the district court, Sierra-Quezada facilitated two hand-to-hand sales, and the record does not show that his will was overborne by the informant. The district court did not clearly err in finding that Sierra-Quezada was not substantially less culpable than other pai’ticipants in the criminal activity. See United States v. Flores-Payon, 942 F.2d 556, 561 (9th Cir.1991) (holding that defendant who attended negotiations and brought drugs to scene was not entitled to downward adjustment under § 3B1.2).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 F. App'x 410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-sierra-quezada-ca9-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack