USA V. GLORIA NAVARRETE, No. 16-50187 (9th Cir. 2017)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 14 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 16-50187 D.C. No. 3:15-cr-00596-BEN-3 v. GLORIA HILDA NAVARRETE, AKA Gloria Navarrete, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted August 10, 2017 Pasadena, California Before: REINHARDT, KOZINSKI, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. “We review the district court’s interpretation of the [U.S. Sentencing] Guidelines de novo, the district court’s application of the Guidelines to the facts of the case for abuse of discretion, and the district court’s factual findings for clear * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. error.” United States v. Treadwell, 593 F.3d 990, 999 (9th Cir. 2010). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 1. The district court increased Navarrete’s sentence under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) for maintaining a stash house. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12), cmt. n.17 (2015). Under the circumstances of this case, the district court did not err by imposing a sentence enhancement under § 2D1.1(b)(12). 2. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c) provides for an upward adjustment based on the defendant’s role in the offense. The district court found that Navarrete was “a lot closer to the top [of the drug-trafficking organization] than she was . . . to the bottom.” The record supports the district court’s findings. The district court did not err when it increased Navarrete’s sentence by two levels for her role in the offense. See United States v. Maldonado, 215 F.3d 1046, 1050–51 (9th Cir. 2000); United States v. Varela, 993 F.2d 686, 691–92 (9th Cir. 1993). AFFIRMED. 2

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.