United States v. Hurtado, No. 13-50170 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to intentionally and knowingly importing 11.64 kilograms of cocaine into the United States from Mexico. The court held that the district court applied the correct legal standard, did not abuse its discretion in its application of the guideline to the facts of the case, and did not clearly err when it found that defendant was a typical commercial drug smuggler and not entitled to a minor role reduction under U.S.S.G. 3B1.2; the district court properly considered the facts of the crime and the totality of the circumstances; defendant's below-guidelines sentence was substantively reasonable; and the fine of $450 was reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel affirmed a sentence imposed for importation of cocaine into the United States, in a case in which the defendant challenged the district court’s denial of a “minor role” reduction pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). The panel held that the district court applied the correct legal standard, did not abuse its discretion in its application of the guideline to the facts of the case, and did not clearly err when it found that the defendant was a typical commercial drug smuggler – no better, no worse – and not entitled to a minor role reduction. The panel held that the district court was not clearly erroneous in finding that although the defendant may have been a cog in some larger wheel, he was an essential cog who, solely for a sizeable sum of money, knowingly smuggled a large quantity of narcotics into the United States via a hidden compartment in his truck. Rejecting the defendant’s contention that he played a minor role simply because he acted as a courier, the panel observed that the district court clearly understood the defendant’s role vis-a-vis other possible participants, and did not abuse its discretion or clearly err in concluding that the defendant’s role was not minor on these facts. The panel rejected the defendant’s contention that his sentence was substantively unreasonable, and his challenges to the district court’s imposition of a $450 fine.
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.