USA V. MELIDA FLORES, No. 10-50498 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 08 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff -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. 10-50498 D.C. No. 2:06-cr-00599-CAS v. MEMORANDUM * MELIDA FLORES, a.k.a. La Dona, a.k.a. Nancy, a.k.a. Seal L, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 28, 2012 ** Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Melida Flores appeals from the 108-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for two counts of conspiracy with intent to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; and eleven counts of * 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 crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and (b)(1)(B)(iii). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Flores contends that the district court erred by denying her a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). The district court did not commit clear error by concluding that Flores was not a minor participant. See United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1282-83 (9th Cir. 2006). Flores also contends that the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(3)(B) because it did not make sufficient findings in support of its conclusion that a minor role adjustment was not warranted. The court s statements were sufficient. See United States v. Ingham, 486 F.3d 1068, 1074 (9th Cir. 2007) (Rule 32 findings need only state the court s resolution of the disputed issue[] ) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). AFFIRMED. 2 10-50498

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.