NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAR 10 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 06-10255
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. CR-05-00858-FRZ
v.
MEMORANDUM *
LUIS ALBERTO MONTOYA-
CAMPILLO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Frank R. Zapata, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2010 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Luis Alberto Montoya-Campillo appeals from the 121-month sentence
imposed following his 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).
SZ/Research
distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii),
and importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a) and
960(a)(1), (b)(1)(H). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we
affirm.
Montoya-Campillo contends that the district court erred when it denied his
request for a minor role adjustment, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). The record
indicates that the district court applied the correct legal standards and did not
clearly err by denying the adjustment. See United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d
1269, 1282-83 (9th Cir. 2006); see also United States v. Lui, 941 F.2d 844, 849
(9th Cir. 1991); United States v. Hursh, 217 F.3d 761, 770 (9th Cir. 2000).
Montoya-Campillo also contends that the district court plainly erred when it
concluded that it lacked the authority to review the government’s refusal to move
for a third point adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, pursuant to U.S.S.G.
§ 3E1.1(b). This contention lacks merit because Montoya-Campillo has not
alleged that the government acted arbitrarily or with an unconstitutional motive.
See United States v. Espinoza-Cano, 456 F.3d 1126, 1137-38 (9th Cir. 2006).
Montoya-Campillo next contends that the district court procedurally erred
by: (1) failing to consider and explain why it rejected his argument about aberrant
conduct; and (2) placing excessive weight on the seriousness of the offense and the
SZ/Research 2 06-10255
advisory Guidelines range. He also contends that his sentence is substantively
unreasonable. The record indicates that the district court did not procedurally err,
and that the sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the
circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See United States v.
Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
The government’s “Motion to Strike Defendant’s F.R.A.P. 28(j) Letter of
Supplemental Authorities” is denied. See 9th Cir. Rule 28-6. Montoya-Campillo’s
request to strike the government’s motion is also denied.
AFFIRMED.
SZ/Research 3 06-10255