NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 17 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-50094
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:15-cr-02703-LAB
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JOSE ROLANDO ROMERO-PAYAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 9, 2017**
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jose Rolando Romero-Payan appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 46-month custodial sentence and 5-year term of supervised release
imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute heroin, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
*
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).
§ 1291, and we affirm.
Romero-Payan contends that the district court erred by denying a minor role
reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). Contrary to Romero-Payan’s contention, the
district court did not erroneously compare Romero-Payan to a hypothetical drug
courier rather than actual participants in the organization. See U.S.S.G. App. C
Amend. 794; United States v. Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d 519, 523 (9th Cir. 2016)
(clarifying that proper point of comparison is other participants in the crime rather
than hypothetical average participant). Instead, the district court specifically asked
Romero-Payan to identify the other known participant to whom he should be
compared and then endeavored to compare him to that participant. The district
court also appropriately considered all relevant facts regarding the charged offense
and the drug-trafficking organization as a whole. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt.
n.3(C); United States v. Hatley, 15 F.3d 856, 859-60 (9th Cir. 1994).
Romero-Payan next contends that the district court procedurally erred by
failing to calculate the applicable Guidelines range for supervised release and
failing to provide an adequate explanation for the term imposed. The district court
did not commit any plain error. See United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d
1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010). Although a district court’s failure to calculate the
applicable Guidelines range may constitute plain error, see United States v.
Hammons, 558 F.3d 1100, 1105 (9th Cir. 2009), it is clear from the record that the
2 16-50094
district court was aware of the applicable supervised release Guidelines range,
which the presentence investigation report, Romero-Payan’s own sentencing
memorandum, and the government’s sentencing chart all correctly reflected.
Romero-Payan, therefore, has not shown a reasonable probability that he would
have received a different sentence had the district court explicitly calculated the
Guidelines range for supervised release. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d
755, 761-62 (9th Cir. 2008). In addition, the district court’s explanation that a
five-year term of supervised release was necessary for added deterrence, when
viewed in the context of the record as a whole, was a sufficient explanation for the
sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc)
(“[A]dequate explanation in some cases may also be inferred from the PSR or the
record as a whole.”).
Finally, the five-year term of supervised release is substantively reasonable
in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(c) factors and the totality of the circumstances,
including Romero-Payan’s active effort to locate and work for a drug-trafficking
organization. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v.
Valdavinos-Torres, 704 F.3d 679, 693 (9th Cir. 2012).
AFFIRMED.
3 16-50094