UNITED STATES v. SALAS (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

Gabriel Salas appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 151-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of methamphetamine and cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Salas contends that the district court misinterpreted and misapplied the minor role Guideline, U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, and its commentary in denying his request for a minor role reduction. 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 reveals that the district court identified the correct legal standard and considered the five factors listed in the commentary before determining that Salas was not “substantially less culpable than the average participant.” See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A), (C). Contrary to Salas’s contention, the district court properly compared Salas’s culpability to known and likely co-participants in the offense and did not err by considering Salas’s criminal history in addition to the commentary’s non-exhaustive factors. See United States v. Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d 519, 523 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[B]ecause the factors set forth in the Amendment are non-exhaustive, a district court may also consider other reasons for granting or denying a minor role reduction.”). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the minor role adjustment in light of the totality of the circumstances, including Salas’s prior successful drug crossings and the large amount of drugs Salas smuggled. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C); Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d at 523.

Salas also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The low-end Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

AFFIRMED.