Unpublished Disposition, 893 F.2d 1339 (9th Cir. 1990)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 893 F.2d 1339 (9th Cir. 1990)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Jose TORRES-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 89-50112.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Dec. 8, 1989.Decided Jan. 11, 1990.

Before JAMES R. BROWNING, BOOCHEVER and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM* 

The district court found that Torres-Rodriguez led border patrol agents in a high-speed chase during which he threw at least one rock at his pursuers. R.T. at 8, 10-11. Defendant further acknowledged that he was a "party" to the rock-throwing. R.T. at 9. The district court properly found that attempts to evade arrest by means of a high speed chase and rock throwing were circumstances not adequately considered by the Sentencing Guidelines. See United States v. Ramirez-De Rosas, 873 F.2d 1177, 1179 (9th Cir. 1989). Defendant failed to show that the district court relied on improper factors when enhancing his sentence.1  See United States v. Hernandez-Vasquez, 884 F.2d 1314, 1315-16 (9th Cir. 1989).

We review the magnitude of a departure allowed under the Guidelines for its reasonableness. 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e) (3). The upward departure from seven to thirty months was not unreasonable in light of the district court's findings. See Ramirez-De Rosas, 873 F.2d at 1180.

Defendant also contends that the district court erred by not finding him to be a "minimal" or "minor" participant in the alien smuggling operation. Minimal or minor status is a finding of fact reviewed for clear error, taking into account the presentence report and the information presented during sentencing proceedings. See 18 U.S.C. § 3742(d) and (e); United States v. Sanchez-Lopez, 879 F.2d 541, 557 (9th Cir. 1989). The district court did not clearly err by denying Torres-Rodriguez an offense level reduction. See, e.g., United States v. Gillock, 886 F.2d 220, 222 (9th Cir. 1989); Sanchez-Lopez, 879 F.2d at 557.

AFFIRMED.

 *

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

 1

We note that the district court may have erred by failing to attach a written record of its factual findings to the presentence report. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(c) (3) (D). However, we decline to address this issue as defendant has not raised it on appeal. See United States v. Columbus, 881 F.2d 785, 788 n. 4 (9th Cir. 1989)

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.