United States v. Teodoro Rivera-Guevara

672 F. App'x 675
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedDecember 22, 2016
Docket15-50510
StatusUnpublished

This text of 672 F. App'x 675 (United States v. Teodoro Rivera-Guevara) 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. Teodoro Rivera-Guevara, 672 F. App'x 675 (9th Cir. 2016).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Teodoro Rivera-Guevara appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 75-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Rivera-Guevara contends that the district court erred by denying his request for a minor role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). We review the court’s interpretation of the Guidelines de novo, and its factual finding that a defendant was not a minor participant for clear error. See United States v. Hurtado, 760 F.3d 1065, 1068 (9th Cir. 2014). The district court properly compared Rivera-Guevara’s culpability to that of an average participant in his offense. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A); United States v. Rojas-Millan, 234 F.3d 464, 473-74 (9th Cir. 2000). Moreover, the district court properly considered Rivera-Guevara’s arguments and the factors listed in the- Guidelines’ revised commentary in finding that Rivera-Guevara’s role in the offense was not minor, based on the totality of the circumstances. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C). That finding was not *676 clearly erroneous in light of Rivera-Guevara’s importing a substantial quantity of methamphetamine into this country using his own vehicle, and his work as a drug courier on two previous occasions. See United States v. Rodriguez-Castro, 641 F.3d 1189, 1192-93 (9th Cir. 2011).

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

Related

United States v. Rodriguez-Castro
641 F.3d 1189 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)
United States v. Maurillo Rojas-Millan
234 F.3d 464 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)
United States v. Hector Hurtado
760 F.3d 1065 (Ninth Circuit, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
672 F. App'x 675, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-teodoro-rivera-guevara-ca9-2016.