Opinion
No. 17-30207
08-20-2018
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARIA ROSA ARTEAGA-GUZMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 1:16-cr-00225-EJL MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho
Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Maria Rosa Arteaga-Guzman appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 70-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and distribution of methamphetamine and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Arteaga-Guzman contends that the district court erred in denying a mitigating role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. She argues that the court failed to consider or incorrectly applied the factors listed in the commentary to the Guideline. We review the district court's application of the Guidelines to the facts for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Gasca-Ruiz, 852 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). The record shows that the district court considered the relevant factors, see U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C), and did not abuse its discretion in applying these factors to the facts of Arteaga-Guzman's case, including her participation in two face-to-face drug transactions and her involvement in traveling to California with her co-defendant to obtain methamphetamine from the supplier.
In light of this holding, we do not address Arteaga-Guzman's argument regarding U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(16), which only applies when a defendant is determined to have played a minimal role in the offense
AFFIRMED.