USA v. John Mohammadi, No. 10-30079 (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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 13 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff -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. 10-30079 D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00352-RSM v. MEMORANDUM * JOHN MOHAMMADI, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 6, 2010 ** Before: GOODWIN, RYMER, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. John Mohammadi appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for bulk cash smuggling, in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5332 and 18 U.S.C. § 2. 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). Mohammadi contends that the district court procedurally erred by denying his 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 Mohammadi s request for a downward adjustment. See United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 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). Mohammadi also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his individual circumstances. The record reflects that the district court did not procedurally err, and the sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 99193 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). AFFIRMED. 2 10-30079

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.