USA V. ISMELDA SANCHEZ, No. 17-50051 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 22 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-50051 D.C. No. 3:14-cr-02804-LAB v. MEMORANDUM* ISMELDA SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 18, 2017** Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Ismelda Sanchez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 68-month sentence imposed upon remand following her 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, 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). Sanchez contends that the district court erred by denying her request for a minor role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. 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). Sanchez argues that the district court failed to compare her to two of her coparticipants in the offense, and incorrectly concluded that she was not entitled to a minor role adjustment under the amended Guideline. The record reflects that the court compared Sanchez to all of the co-participants she identified, and found that Sanchez was not “substantially less culpable than the average participant.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A). In light of the totality of the circumstances, including Sanchez’s prior drug smuggling activity, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the reduction. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C); GascaRuiz, 852 F.3d at 1170. AFFIRMED. 2 17-50051

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.