United States v. Simon Judge, Jr.

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Simon Judge, Jr.

678 F. App'x 591

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 27, 2017

Docket15-50533

StatusUnpublished

This text of 678 F. App'x 591 (United States v. Simon Judge, Jr.) 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. Simon Judge, Jr., 678 F. App'x 591 (9th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Simon John Judge, Jr., appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 60-month concurrent - sentences imposed following his guilty-plea convictions for importation of heroin and cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Judge first contends that the district court erred by applying the incorrect legal standard to his request for a minor role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. Specifically, he argues that the court erred by relying on United States v. Hurtado, 760 F.3d 1065 (9th Cir. 2014), which he argues was superseded by Amendment 794 (“the Amendment”) to the minor role guideline. Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d 519, 522 (9th Cir. 2016), we conclude that any error was harmless. Even if the Amendment and Hurtado are in conflict, the court properly applied the Amendment; it' compared Judge to his co-participants in the offense, and considered the factors enumerated in the guideline and the totality of the circumstances; to determine whether Judge *592 was “substantially less culpable than the average participant.” See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A), (C) (2015). Contrary to Judge’s suggestion, the court did not deny the minor role reduction based on his essential role in the offense, or in reliance on a single fact.

Judge next contends that the court clearly erred in finding that he was not a minor participant in the offense. In light of the totality of the circumstances, including the multiple times that Judge crossed the border with marijuana seeds before the offense, we conclude that the court did not clearly err. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C); Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d at 522-23.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Simon John Judge, Jr., appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 60-month concurrent - sentences imposed following his guilty-plea convictions for importation of heroin and cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Judge first contends that the district court erred by applying the incorrect legal standard to his request for a minor role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. Specifically, he argues that the court erred by relying on United States v. Hurtado, 760 F.3d 1065 (9th Cir. 2014), which he argues was superseded by Amendment 794 (“the Amendment”) to the minor role guideline. Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d 519, 522 (9th Cir. 2016), we conclude that any error was harmless. Even if the Amendment and Hurtado are in conflict, the court properly applied the Amendment; it' compared Judge to his co-participants in the offense, and considered the factors enumerated in the guideline and the totality of the circumstances; to determine whether Judge *592 was “substantially less culpable than the average participant.” See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A), (C) (2015). Contrary to Judge’s suggestion, the court did not deny the minor role reduction based on his essential role in the offense, or in reliance on a single fact.

Judge next contends that the court clearly erred in finding that he was not a minor participant in the offense. In light of the totality of the circumstances, including the multiple times that Judge crossed the border with marijuana seeds before the offense, we conclude that the court did not clearly err. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C); Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d at 522-23.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

678 F. App'x 591, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-simon-judge-jr-ca9-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack