NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAR 16 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-50115
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:13-cr-04022-LAB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JOSE JAIR SAINZ-CAMACHO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 10, 2015**
Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Jose Jair Sainz-Camacho appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 67-month custodial sentence and eight-year term of supervised
release imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of heroin and
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction
*
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).
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Sainz-Camacho contends that the district court erred in denying his request
for a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) by misapplying the
Guideline and relying on improper considerations. We review the district court’s
interpretation of the Guidelines de novo, its application of the Guidelines to the
facts of the case for abuse of discretion, and its factual determination that a
defendant is not a minor participant for clear error. See United States v. Rodriguez-
Castro, 641 F.3d 1189, 1192 (9th Cir. 2011). The record reflects that the district
court understood and applied the correct legal standard, properly considered the
totality of the circumstances, and did not rely on improper factors in denying the
adjustment. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n. 3(A), (C); United States v. Hurtado, 760
F.3d 1065, 1068-69 (9th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 2015 WL 732229 (U.S. Feb. 23,
2015). The record further supports the court’s conclusion that Sainz-Camacho
failed to carry his burden of establishing that he was entitled to the adjustment. See
Rodriguez-Castro, 641 F.3d at 1193.
Sainz-Camacho also contends that the district court procedurally erred by
failing to explain why it imposed supervised release despite U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c),
which provides that supervised release should not ordinarily be imposed if the
defendant is a deportable alien. The record reflects that the district court
2 14-50115
adequately considered section 5D1.1(c) and explained that it believed that a
supervised release term was necessary to deter in this case. See U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1
cmt. n.5; Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 108-10 (2007) (district courts
have discretion to vary from the Guidelines on policy grounds).
Sainz-Camacho last contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Sainz-Camacho’s
sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The term of
supervised release and below-Guidelines custodial sentence are substantively
reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the
circumstances, including the large amount of narcotics that Sainz-Camacho
imported. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
AFFIRMED.
3 14-50115