USA v. Jose de Jesus Marrujo Meza, No. 09-10192 (9th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED SEP 29 2010 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 09-10192 D.C. No. 4:08-CR-01014-JMR v. MEMORANDUM * JOSE DE JESUS MARRUJO MEZA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona John M. Roll, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted September 13, 2010 ** Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Jose de Jesus Marrujo Meza appeals from the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A)(iii); importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a) and * 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). 960(b)(1)(H); possession with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A)(i); and importation of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a) and 960(b)(1)(A). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Meza contends that the district court erred by denying the mitigating role adjustment at U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. Under the facts of this case, the district court did not clearly err by denying the adjustment for a minimal or minor participant. See United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1282 (9th Cir. 2006) (describing standard); see also United States v. Lui, 941 F.2d 844, 849 (9th Cir. 1991) (stating that a defendant may be a courier without being either a minimal or a minor participant, and that possession of a substantial amount of narcotics is grounds for refusing to grant a sentence reduction ). AFFIRMED. 2 09-10192
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.
