USA V. GENARO GARCIA, No. 16-50108 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED JUL 3 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-50108 D.C. No. 2:15-cr-00605-AB v. MEMORANDUM* GENARO GILBERT VELASCO GARCIA, a.k.a. Genaro Garcia, a.k.a. Genaro Velasco, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California André Birotte, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 26, 2017** Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Genaro Gilbert Velasco Garcia appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 70-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 (b)(1)(C). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. * 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). § 1291, and we affirm. Garcia contends that the district court erred in denying his request for a mitigating role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. He argues that the court failed to evaluate his culpability relative to others in the drug distribution scheme and that he is entitled to the adjustment under the five factors enumerated in the commentary to the Guideline. We review the district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines de novo and its application of the Guidelines to the facts of the case 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 properly considered Garcia’s role in the trafficking scheme, and the factors enumerated in the Guideline and the totality of the circumstances, to determine whether Garcia was “substantially less culpable than the average participant.” See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A), (C); United States v. Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d 519, 523 (9th Cir. 2016). Moreover, in light of the circumstances of the offense, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Garcia was not a minor or minimal participant. AFFIRMED. 2 16-50108

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.