USA v. Violeta Cervera-Lorna, No. 09-50569 (9th Cir. 2010)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 13 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 09-50569 D.C. No. 3:09-cr-01605-LAB v. MEMORANDUM * VIOLETA CERVERA-LORNA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 6, 2010 ** Before: GOODWIN, RYMER, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. Violeta Cervera-Lorna appeals from the 78-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for importation of 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Cervera-Lorna contends that the district court erred by denying her request for a two-level minor role adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. The district court did not clearly err by denying Cervera-Lorna s request for a downward adjustment. See United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1283-84 (9th Cir. 2006); see also United States v. Hursh, 217 F.3d 761, 770 (9th Cir. 2000) (the fact that a defendant acted as a courier does not mean his role was minor). Cervera-Lorna also contends that the district court s denial of a minor role adjustment created a drastic sentencing disparity between her and similarly situated defendants. This argument is unpersuasive. In any event, the record reflects that the district court specifically granted a downward variance in order to avoid sentencing disparities with similarly situated defendants, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). The government s request to strike opposing counsel s declaration is denied as moot. AFFIRMED. 2 09-50569

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.