NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 30 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 20-30196
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 1:19-cr-00157-SPW-2
v.
CHARLES ANTHONY SLOAN, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 21, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Charles Anthony Sloan appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 84-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and distribution
of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Sloan contends that the district court erred by denying his request for a
minimal participant reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(a). We review the district
court’s interpretation of the Guidelines de novo, its factual findings for clear error,
and its application of the Guidelines 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 properly considered the factors
listed in the commentary to the mitigating role Guideline. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2
cmt. n.3(C). The court acknowledged Sloan’s mitigating circumstances, including
that Sloan was not entrusted with the drugs for sale or the proceeds from the sale,
but reasonably denied the reduction in light of Sloan’s decision-making authority,
his awareness of the scope and structure of the criminal activity, and the nature of
his participation. See United States v. Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d 519, 523 (9th Cir.
2016) (district court may deny a § 3B1.2 adjustment even if some factors weigh in
favor of a reduction). To the extent Sloan also contends that the court erred by
denying a minor participant adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b), the district
court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that Sloan was not “substantially
less culpable than the average participant” in the criminal activity. See United
States v. Diaz, 884 F.3d 911, 914 (9th Cir. 2018). Under the totality of the
circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2
2 20-30196
cmt. n.3(C), n.4, n.5.
AFFIRMED.
3 20-30196