USA V. INES CELIS-LOPEZ, No. 15-50526 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 20 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 15-50526 D.C. No. 3:15-cr-01156-LAB v. MEMORANDUM* INES CELIS-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 11, 2017** Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Ines Celis-Lopez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 72-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of heroin and methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 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). Celis-Lopez contends that the district court erred by denying his request for a minor role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). He argues that the court failed to conduct the requisite comparative culpability analysis and erred in finding that he was not a minor participant. We review the district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines de novo, and its factual finding that a defendant was not a minor participant for clear error. See United States v. Hurtado, 760 F.3d 1065, 1068 (9th Cir. 2014). Contrary to Celis-Lopez’s argument, the court properly compared his culpability to that of an average participant in his offense. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A). It specifically compared Celis-Lopez to the one co-participant to whom Celis-Lopez asked to be compared, and also considered Celis-Lopez’s role in the overall drug smuggling scheme. See United States v. Rojas-Millan, 234 F.3d 464, 473-74 (9th Cir. 2000). Furthermore, although the court acknowledged that some of the facts supported a minor role adjustment in this case, it did not clearly err in finding, based on the totality of the circumstances, that Celis-Lopez’s role in the offense was not minor. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C); United States v. Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d 519, 523 (9th Cir. 2016). Celis-Lopez also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his mitigating circumstances. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The below2 15-50526 Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the large amount of drugs that Celis-Lopez imported. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. AFFIRMED. 3 15-50526
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.
