USA v. Rafael Vea-Martinez, No. 10-10049 (9th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED JAN 05 2011 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 10-10049 D.C. No. 4:08-cr-01522-CKJ v. MEMORANDUM * RAFAEL VEA-MARTINEZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 14, 2010 ** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. Rafael Vea-Martinez appeals from the 97-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(viii), and * 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). possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(ii)(II). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Vea-Martinez contends the district court erred by applying the wrong standard when evaluating whether he should receive a minor role adjustment under the Sentencing Guidelines. He maintains that as a result of this error, the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. The record reflects that the district court applied the correct standard in denying the adjustment, and that it did not clearly err by determining that Vea-Martinez did not sustain his burden of showing that he was substantially less culpable than his co-participants. See United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1282-84 (9th Cir. 2006). The record further indicates that, under the totality of the circumstances, Vea-Martinez s below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). AFFIRMED. 2 10-10049

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.