U.S.A. v. Soto-Hinojosa

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. IGNACIO SOTO-HINOJOSA…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Dec 30, 2008

305 F. App'x 472 (9th Cir. 2008)

Opinion

No. 07-10354.

Submitted December 17, 2008.^_

_ The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed December 30, 2008.

Kathleen A. Servatius, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Fresno, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Harry M. Drandell, Law Office of Harry M. Drandell, Fresno, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Oliver W. Wanger, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-04-05278-OWW.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and RYMER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM^__

__ This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Ignacio Soto-Hinojosa appeals from the 168-month sentence imposed after his guilty-plea conviction for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Soto-Hinojosa contends that the district court clearly erred by denying him a mitigating role reduction pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Soto-Hinojosa was not a minimal or minor participant in the criminal activity. See United States v. Awad, 371 F.3d 583, 591 (9th Cir. 2004).

Soto-Hinojosa also contends that the district court clearly erred by denying him safety-valve relief pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2. We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding Soto-Hinojosa ineligible. See United States v. Mejia-Pimental, 477 F.3d 1100, 1104 (9th Cir. 2007); United States v. Miller, 151 F.3d 957, 961 (9th Cir. 1998).

Soto-Hinojosa further contends that the district court erred by denying his motion for a downward departure based on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and that his sentence is, therefore, substantively unreasonable. We conclude that the sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc); United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 760-761 (9th Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED.