USA V. SEVERIANO RODRIGUEZ-QUINONES, No. 11-50105 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED MAY 18 2012 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 11-50105 D.C. No. 3:06-cr-00590-H v. MEMORANDUM * SEVERIANO RODRIGUEZQUINONES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 15, 2012 ** Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Severiano Rodriguez-Quinones appeals from the 144-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. We have * 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). jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Rodriguez-Quinones contends that the district court erred by declining to award a minor role adjustment because he was merely a courier. In view of the undisputed evidence that Rodriguez-Quinones made several trips across the border transporting drugs and money, the district court did not clearly err by denying the adjustment. See United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1282-83 (9th Cir. 2006). Rodriguez-Quinones also contends that the district court erred by imposing a two-level enhancement for using a minor to commit the offense. The district court did not clearly err by imposing the enhancement, because the record reflects that Rodriguez-Quinones affirmatively used his children and two other minors to reduce the likelihood of detection. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.4; United States v. CastroHernandez, 258 F.3d 1057, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 2001). The record reflects that Rodriguez-Quinones s sentence, which is 66 months below the low end of the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). AFFIRMED. 2 11-50105

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.