Opinion
No. 09-50012.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed April 15, 2010.
Michael Lewis Merriman, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Gary Paul Burcham, Burcham Zugman, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 3:08-cr-02627-LAB.
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Sergio Venegas-Martin Del Campo Appeals from the 57-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Venegas-Martin Del Campo contends the district court erred by denying his request for a minor role adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) because he was merely a courier of the drugs involved. The record reflects that Venegas-Martin Del Campo knowingly transported a substantial amount of narcotics, see United States v. Hursh, 217 F.3d 761, 770 (9th Cir. 2000), and planned on accepting money in return, see United States v. Davis, 36 F.3d 1424, 1437 (9th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err by declining to apply a minor role adjustment. See United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1283-84 (9th Cir. 2006).
Further, the district court did not misapply the guidelines because VenegasMartin Del Campo failed to carry his burden of proving that he was entitled to a minor role adjustment. See Hursh, 217 F.3d at 770; Davis, 36 F.3d at 1437.
Venegas-Martin Del Campo also contends his sentence is unreasonable because the district court: (1) failed to apply the parsimony principle; (2) created an unwarranted sentencing disparity among drug importation cases; and (3) based its sentence on a clearly erroneous fact. The record shows that the district court did not procedurally err and that Venegas-Martin Del Campo's sentence is not substantively unreasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 994-96 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.