USA V. RICARDO FERNANDEZ, No. 14-50139 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED MAR 18 2015 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 14-50139 D.C. No. 3:13-cr-02247-BEN MEMORANDUM* RICARDO FERNANDEZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 10, 2015** Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges. Ricardo Fernandez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 96-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine, 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). Fernandez challenges the district court’s denial of a minor-role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, claiming that the district court incorrectly interpreted and applied the Guideline in denying the reduction. We review the district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines de novo, its application of the Guidelines to the facts of the case for abuse of discretion, and its finding that a defendant is not a minor participant for clear error. See United States v. Rodriguez-Castro, 641 F.3d 1189, 1192 (9th Cir. 2011). The record reflects that the district court understood the legal standard, applied it correctly, and properly considered the totality of the circumstances, when it denied the adjustment. See United States v. Hurtado, 760 F.3d 1065, 1068-69 (9th Cir. 2014). Moreover, because Fernandez was the registered owner and sole occupant of a vehicle in which a substantial amount of drugs was discovered, and admitted that he expected to be paid $1,500 for smuggling the drugs, the district court did not clearly err in holding that he was not a minor participant. See id. AFFIRMED. 2 14-50139

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.