NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 19 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-50356
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:17-cr-00245-LAB
v.
MARITZA BURGUENO-GONZALEZ, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 17, 2018**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Maritza Burgueno-Gonzalez appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 84-month sentence imposed following her jury-trial conviction for
importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 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).
Burgueno-Gonzalez first contends that the district court failed to consider
the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities when it refused to compare
Burgueno-Gonzalez’s sentence to the sentences previously imposed on other
individuals who were involved in the overall drug trafficking organization. The
district court did not err because it did consider those other individuals and found
that they were not similarly situated to Burgueno-Gonzalez. See United States v.
Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1121 (9th Cir. 2009) (no unwarranted sentencing disparity
if defendants are not similarly situated).
Burgueno-Gonzalez also contends that the district court erroneously denied
her a minor-role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. We review the district court’s
interpretation of the Guidelines de novo, and its factual findings for clear error.
See United States v. Gasca-Ruiz, 852 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc).
Contrary to Burgueno-Gonzalez’s argument, the district court properly concluded
that importers who had worked for the same drug organization in the past were not
“co-participants” in Burgueno-Gonzalez’s offense for purposes of assessing her
relative culpability. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. n.1 (defining “participant” under
the minor role Guideline as “a person who is criminally responsible for the
commission of the offense”); United States v. Rojas-Millan, 234 F.3d 464, 473 (9th
Cir. 2000) (“the relevant comparison is between the defendant’s conduct and that
of the other participants in the same offense” (internal quotations and alteration
2 17-50356
omitted)). The court also did not clearly err in assuming that Burgueno-Gonzalez,
despite facing some coercion, was also paid for the importation activity. See
United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1262 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc). In any
event, the record reflects that the court’s presumption about payment did not affect
its decision to deny a minor role reduction or the sentence selected. See United
States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
3 17-50356