FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 20 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-50421
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:14-cr-03486-WQH
v.
MEMORANDUM*
RAYMOND DOUGLAS APPELWICK,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2016**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Raymond Douglas Appelwick appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 96-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea convictions
for conspiracy to import methamphetamine and importation of methamphetamine,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as
provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960, and 963. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Appelwick contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because
the district court overstated the seriousness of his offense, failed to consider
mitigating evidence, and imposed a sentence greater than necessary. The district
court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Appelwick’s sentence. See Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The court varied downward 72 months in
recognition of Appelwick’s mitigating circumstances. The below-Guidelines
sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing
factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the amount of
methamphetamine Appelwick attempted to transport into the United States, his
prior arrest for delivering methamphetamine to a “stash house,” and his
procurement of motorcycle batteries used to bring drugs into the country. See
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
We decline to reach Appelwick’s claim, raised for the first time in his reply
brief, that he is entitled to a minor role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. See
United States v. Mejia-Pimental, 477 F.3d 1100, 1105 n.9 (9th Cir. 2007).
Contrary to Appelwick’s contention, neither the amendment to the minor role
Guideline, which became effective before the opening brief was filed, nor this
2 15-50421
court’s holding that the amendment is retroactive, constitutes good cause for
Appelwick’s failure to raise the claim earlier.
AFFIRMED.
3 15-50421