Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven DIAZ, Defendant-Appellant.
MEMORANDUM **
Steven Diaz appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 78-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea 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.
Diaz contends that the district court erred by denying his request for a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. We review the district court's interpretation of the Guidelines de novo, its factual findings for clear error, 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 reflects that the district court identified the proper factors to evaluate Diaz's request for a minor role adjustment. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C). The district court did not rely on any clearly erroneous factual findings, see United States v. Graf, 610 F.3d 1148, 1157 (9th Cir. 2010), and permissibly concluded that Diaz failed to proffer sufficient, credible evidence to demonstrate that he was “substantially less culpable than the average participant,” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A). Nor did the district court abuse its discretion by determining that the substantial amount of methamphetamine Diaz possessed weighed against granting a minor role adjustment. See United States v. Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d 519, 523 (9th Cir. 2016) (factors set forth in the commentary to the minor role Guideline are non-exhaustive); see also United States v. Hurtado, 760 F.3d 1065, 1069 (9th Cir. 2014), overruled on other grounds by Gasca-Ruiz, 852 F.3d at 1173-74. Under the totality of the circumstances, the district court was within its discretion to conclude that Diaz was not entitled to a minor role adjustment. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C).
Because the criteria for safety valve relief under U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2 and a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 are different, it was not inconsistent for the district court to grant the former but not the latter.
AFFIRMED.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 19-50153
Decided: February 22, 2021
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)