FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 15 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-50616
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:13-cr-02715-JAH
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MANUEL ALEJANDRO PATINO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 13, 2014**
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Manuel Alejandro Patino appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 95-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Patino claims that the court erred by denying his request for a minor rule
reduction pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 because (1) Patino presented sufficient
evidence to justify the reduction, and (2) the court improperly relied upon hearsay
statements regarding his status as a recruiter to deny the reduction. We review for
clear error the district court’s factual determination that a defendant is not a minor
participant. See United States v. Rodriguez-Castro, 641 F.3d 1189, 1192 (9th Cir.
2011). In light of the record, including Patino’s transportation of a substantial
amount of currency and methamphetamine, the court did not clearly err by denying
the adjustment. See id. at 1193. Further, because Patino has not shown that the
challenged statements regarding his status as a recruiter were false or unreliable,
the district court did not err by considering them. See United States v.
Vanderwerfhorst, 576 F.3d 929, 935-36 (9th Cir. 2009).
Patino next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The
district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Patino’s sentence. See Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The below-Guidelines sentence is
substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) sentencing factors, including the nature of Patino’s offense. See id.
AFFIRMED.
2 13-50616