FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 03 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-50369
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:14-cr-00625-LAB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIKA MACIAS-JIMENEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2016**
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Erika Macias-Jimenez appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 70-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for
importation of cocaine and methamphetamine, 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).
Macias-Jimenez argues that the district court erred in denying a minor role
reduction to her base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). We decline to reach
this claim because any error was harmless. The district court initially calculated
the Guidelines range without a minor role adjustment and explained why a
downward variance to a sentence of 70 months was appropriate. It then performed
its sentencing analysis a second time, based on the Guidelines range that resulted
from a minor role reduction, and again arrived at a sentence of 70 months. Under
these circumstances, we conclude that any error in failing to grant the minor role
reduction requested by Macias-Jimenez was harmless. See United States v.
Munoz-Camarena, 631 F.3d 1028, 1030 n.5 (9th Cir. 2011) (harmless error may
result where the district judge “acknowledges that the correct Guidelines range is
in dispute and performs his analysis twice, beginning with both the correct and
incorrect range”).
AFFIRMED.
2 14-50369