FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 14 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 11-10479
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:10-cr-00115-LRH-
WGC-1
v.
AARON ROSS, MEMORANDUM *
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 12, 2012 **
Las Vegas, Nevada
Before: RAWLINSON, BYBEE, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
The district court did not clearly err by applying a leadership role
enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c) to Ross’s sentence because the record
supports the conclusion that Ross supervised at least one other participant in the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
crime, Jackson. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c) & cmt. n. 1; United States v. Cyphers,
130 F.3d 1361, 1363 (9th Cir. 1997) (“A participant for purposes of a role
adjustment is ‘a person who is criminally responsible for the commission of the
offense, but need not have been convicted.’” (emphasis added)). The conclusion
that Ross supervised Jackson is supported by, among other things, the district
court’s findings that Ross directed Jackson to pay for the minors’ bus tickets and
their hotel room, which was “to be used for both their accommodations and for
their work.”
“Clearly erroneous review is significantly deferential, requiring that the
appellate court accept the district court’s findings absent a definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Syrax, 235 F.3d
422, 427 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). The relevant offense
was transportation of a minor for prostitution. See 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a) (requiring
to prove a violation that a person “knowingly transport[] an individual who has not
attained the age of 18 years in interstate or foreign commerce . . . with intent that
the individual engage in prostitution”). Though Jackson was not convicted, the
record supports the conclusion that he was criminally responsible for transportation
of a minor for prostitution. Jackson was close friends with and spent a significant
amount of time with Ross; he was familiar and had associated with the Gouda
2
Mob; he purchased the bus tickets used to transport Ross and the minors, and
traveled with them to Reno; and he knew that the girls were underage and worked
as prostitutes. In light of this evidence and the district court’s findings, there
cannot be a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” See
id.
Ross’s argument that the district court did not make any findings on his
management of Jackson is without merit. “It is not necessary that the district court
make specific findings of fact to justify the imposition of the role enhancement . . .
[so long as there is] evidence in the record that would support the conclusion . . . .”
United States v. Whitney, 673 F.3d 965, 975 (9th Cir. 2012). In any event, the
district court explicitly adopted the pre-sentence report and its addendum
containing the findings regarding Jackson. See United States v. Scott, 642 F.3d
791, 801 (9th Cir. 2011).
AFFIRMED.
3