USA V. IRIS DERAS-ELIAS, No. 16-50373 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 2 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-50373 D.C. No. 3:16-cr-01221-LAB v. MEMORANDUM* IRIS LISSETTE DERAS-ELIAS, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 26, 2017** Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Iris Lissette Deras-Elias appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 78-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea convictions for importation of methamphetamine and cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. 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). Deras-Elias contends that the district court erred by relying on conjecture concerning the number of times she smuggled drugs to deny her request for a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its determination that Deras-Elias was not a minor participant for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Gasca-Ruiz, 852 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). Contrary to Deras-Elias’s argument, neither the Confrontation Clause, nor the rules of evidence, are implicated by the court’s sentencing findings. See Fed. R. Evid. 1101(d)(3) (federal rules of evidence do not apply at sentencing); United States v. Littlesun, 444 F.3d 1196, 1199-1200 (9th Cir. 2006) (Confrontation Clause applies to trial testimony, not sentencing). Furthermore, the court did not rely on conjecture or evidence from other cases to conclude that Deras-Elias “must have been involved in many more loads.” Rather, the court found that, on at least one of Deras-Elias’s 11 border crossings in the month before her arrest, she had transported drugs. This finding was not clearly erroneous, given the government’s representation, to which DerasElias did not object, that Deras-Elias had admitted during her safety valve debrief to at least one prior drug crossing. See United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1262 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (a finding is clearly erroneous only if it is illogical, implausible, or without support in inferences from the record). In light of this 2 16-50373 admission and the totality of the circumstances, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the adjustment. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C). AFFIRMED. 3 16-50373
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.
