NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 2 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-50445
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:14-cr-03059-BEN
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIK ALTAMIRANO,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Erik Altamirano appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the 18-month sentence imposed upon remand following his guilty-plea conviction
for importation of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
*
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).
Altamirano contends that the district court erred by denying his request for a
minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. He argues that the district court
improperly (1) refused to consider his statement concerning his role in the offense,
despite finding his statements reliable for purposes of granting adjustments for
safety-valve and acceptance of responsibility; (2) failed to consider all of the likely
participants in the offense and their relative culpability; and (3) relied on
superseded case law. Altamirano suggests that he was entitled to the adjustment
because he was a first-time offender who carried the drugs on his body. We
review the district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines de novo, and its
application of the Guidelines to the facts for abuse of discretion. See United States
v. Gasca-Ruiz, 852 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc).
The record reflects that the district court considered Altamirano’s statement
about his role in the offense, but nevertheless concluded that the adjustment was
not warranted. Furthermore, the record reflects that the court compared
Altamirano to other participants in the offense beyond his recruiter, and did not
apply this court’s precedent in any way that conflicts with the 2015 amendment to
the minor role Guideline. The district court applied the correct legal standard and
did not abuse its discretion in denying the adjustment based on the totality of the
circumstances. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A), (C).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-50445