FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 05 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 09-50145
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:07-CR-02466-JM
v.
MEMORANDUM *
GUADALUPE GONZALEZ-
ALVARADO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Jeffrey T. Miller, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2010 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Guadalupe Gonzalez-Alvarado appeals from the 108-month sentence
imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to
*
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).
EG/Research
distribute methamphetamine and possession with intent to distribute heroin, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Gonzalez-Alvarado contends that the district court erred in determining that
she was ineligible for the minor participant role adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. §
3B1.2(b). The district court did not clearly err in concluding that Gonzalez-
Alvarado had not met her burden of proof of establishing that she was substantially
less culpable than co-participants in the smuggling scheme. See United States v.
Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1282-83 (9th Cir. 2006). Contrary to Gonzalez-
Alvarado’s contention, the district court’s findings encompassed the required
comparison of Gonzalez-Alvarado with co-participants in the scheme.
Gonzalez-Alvarado further contends that the district court procedurally erred
by failing to consider and discuss the factors set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and
imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence when it placed greater weight on
the serious nature of the offense than on the other § 3553(a) factors. Our review of
the record indicates that the district court did not procedurally err. See Rita v.
United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356-59 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984,
991-92, 995 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Considering the totality of the
EG/Research 2 09-50145
circumstances, the district court’s sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range
was substantively reasonable. Carty, 520 F.3d at 993.
AFFIRMED.
EG/Research 3 09-50145