From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Diaz-Lozano

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Jun 18, 2018
No. 17-10272 (9th Cir. Jun. 18, 2018)

Opinion

No. 17-10272

06-18-2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FAUSTO DIAZ-LOZANO, a.k.a. Fausto Diaz, Defendant-Appellant.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

D.C. No. 2:10-cr-00391-JAM MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

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

Fausto Diaz-Lozano appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 210-month sentence imposed on remand following his jury-trial conviction for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute at least 500 grams of methamphetamine, possession with intent to distribute at least 50 grams of methamphetamine (actual), conspiracy to manufacture at least 100 marijuana plants, and manufacture of at least 100 marijuana plants, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Diaz-Lozano contends that the district court erred in applying a two-level aggravating role enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). Contrary to the government's argument, our review of the district court's application of the aggravating role enhancement is not precluded by the law-of-the-case doctrine because the previous panel did not hold that application of the aggravating role enhancement was appropriate. See Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. EEOC, 691 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1982) (under law-of-the-case doctrine, a court is precluded from reexamining an issue that was "decided explicitly or by necessary implication in this court's previous disposition").

We grant Diaz-Lozano's unopposed motion to take judicial notice of excerpts of his briefs in the previous appeal. --------

A district court's application of the Guidelines to the facts of a case is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and its underlying factual findings are reviewed for clear error. See United States v. Gasca-Ruiz, 852 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). The district court did not abuse its discretion in applying the two-level aggravating role enhancement. Although Roberto Bermudez-Ornelas's statement implicating Diaz-Lozano as his supervisor in caring for the marijuana plants was hearsay, the statement had "some minimal indicia of reliability" because it was supported by extrinsic evidence. See United States v. Pimentel-Lopez, 859 F.3d 1134, 1144 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation and quotation marks omitted). In particular, evidence reflected that Diaz-Lozano previously discussed having a person stay at his marijuana grow site for a while, and Diaz-Lozano claimed ownership of the marijuana grow site where officers encountered Bermudez-Ornelas.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

United States v. Diaz-Lozano

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Jun 18, 2018
No. 17-10272 (9th Cir. Jun. 18, 2018)
Case details for

United States v. Diaz-Lozano

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FAUSTO DIAZ-LOZANO…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jun 18, 2018

Citations

No. 17-10272 (9th Cir. Jun. 18, 2018)

Citing Cases

United States v. Espinoza

A district court's application of the Guidelines to the facts of a case is reviewed for abuse of discretion,…