USA V. OSCAR ROBLES-SALINAS, No. 13-50067 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED MAR 13 2014 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 13-50067 D.C. No. 3:12-cr-03464-LAB v. MEMORANDUM* OSCAR ALONSO ROBLES-SALINAS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 10, 2014** Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Oscar Alonso Robles-Salinas appeals from the district court s judgment and challenges the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. 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). Robles-Salinas contends that the district court erred by denying his request for a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). He argues that the court erred by (i) improperly considering his lack of candor with the probation officer, (ii) engaging in speculation about the type and amount of drugs involved in a prior smuggling venture, and (iii) giving undue consideration to the amount of drugs involved in the instant offense. Contrary to Robles-Salinas s contention, the court properly considered the totality of the circumstances in making its minor role determination. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C). Moreover, because RoblesSalinas failed to prove that he was substantially less culpable than the average participant in the offense, the district court did not clearly err by denying the adjustment. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A); United States v. Rodriguez-Castro, 641 F.3d 1189, 1192-93 (9th Cir. 2011). AFFIRMED. 2 13-50067

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.