USA V. RUBI MARTINEZ-SOTO, No. 13-10633 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 17 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 13-10633 D.C. No. 4:13-cr-00482-CKJ v. MEMORANDUM* RUBI ROXANA MARTINEZ-SOTO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 9, 2014** Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Rubi Roxana Martinez-Soto challenges the 48-month, below-Guidelines sentence imposed by the district court following her guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii), and importation of methamphetamine, in violation 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). 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960(a)(1) and 960(b)(1)(H). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Martinez-Soto claims that the district court applied the wrong legal standard to her request for a minor role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). Our review is de novo. See United States v. Hurtado, 760 F.3d 1065, 1068 (9th Cir. 2014). The district court properly compared Martinez-Soto’s culpability to that of the average participants in the overall drug trafficking scheme in which she was involved. See id. at 1068-69. Moreover, the district court did not clearly err in finding that MartinezSoto’s role in the drug trafficking scheme was not minor, given that she was paid by the traffickers to import a substantial quantity of pure methamphetamine into this country, and had also worked as a drug courier for them two days before her arrest. See United States v. Rodriguez-Castro, 641 F.3d 1189, 1192-93 (9th Cir. 2011). AFFIRMED. 2 13-10633

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.