USA V. JULIAN JUAREZ, No. 16-50317 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUL 3 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-50317 D.C. No. 3:15-cr-02048-BEN v. MEMORANDUM* JULIAN JUAREZ, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 26, 2017** Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Julian Juarez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 30-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for distribution of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and 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). Juarez contends that the district court erred in denying his request for a minor role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). He argues that the court did not adequately consider all of the factors contained in the commentary to the Guideline, and failed to compare him to all of his co-participants in the offense. Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d 519, 522 (9th Cir. 2016), we conclude that Juarez’s claims fail. The record reflects that the court invited comment at the sentencing hearing on each of the five factors and properly considered those factors, as well as the totality of the circumstances, before concluding that Juarez was not “substantially less culpable than the average participant.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A), (C). Moreover, the court compared Juarez to his named co-participants in the offense and considered other possible participants in the overall scheme. Finally, contrary to Juarez’s claim, the court did not apply this court’s precedent in a way that conflicts with the minor role Guideline. See Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d at 523 (because the five factors are nonexhaustive, “a district court may also consider other reasons for granting or denying a minor role reduction”). AFFIRMED. 2 16-50317
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.
