USA v. Jesus Zamarripa-Mireles, No. 13-5470 (6th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 14a0089n.06 FILED No. 13-5470 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JESUS ZAMARRIPA-MIRELES, Defendant-Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Jan 31, 2014 DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE BEFORE: BOGGS and MOORE, Circuit Judges; BARRETT, District Judge.* PER CURIAM. Jesus Zamarripa-Mireles, a federal prisoner, appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to a charge of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine. The district court calculated the guidelines sentencing range at 235 to 293 months of imprisonment, but varied downward and sentenced ZamarripaMireles to 192 months. On appeal, Zamarripa-Mireles argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court declined to grant him a minor-role adjustment to his offense level under USSG ยง 3B1.2(b). We review a criminal sentence under an abuse-of-discretion standard for reasonableness. United States v. Bolds, 511 F.3d 568, 578 (6th Cir. 2007). A sentence may be procedurally * The Honorable Michael R. Barrett, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation. No. 13-5470 United States v. Zamarripa-Mireles unreasonable if the district court fails to properly calculate the guideline range. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The denial of a minor-role reduction is reviewed for clear error. United States v. Latouf, 132 F.3d 320, 332 (6th Cir. 1997). The defendant has the burden of proving his alleged minor-participant status by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Elder, 90 F.3d 1110, 1134 (6th Cir. 1996). An adjustment is warranted only where the defendant is substantially less culpable than the average participant. United States v. Lanham, 617 F.3d 873, 888 (6th Cir. 2010). In this case, Zamarripa-Mireles was one link in a chain transporting cocaine from Mexico to Tennessee. His role was to obtain the cocaine from truckers who brought it into Texas and deliver it to the home of a coconspirator in Houston, who would then transport it to a storage unit, where it would be picked up and transported to a storage unit in Tennessee. ZamarripaMireles did not prove that he was substantially less culpable than the other links in the chain of transporting the cocaine. Therefore, we find no clear error in the denial of an adjustment to his offense level. Because Zamarripa-Mireles has not demonstrated that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable, we affirm the district court s judgment. -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.
