USA V. CHRISTIAN VALLE-MENDIVIL, No. 14-50502 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED OCT 19 2015 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 14-50502 D.C. No. 3:14-cr-01315-LAB v. MEMORANDUM* CHRISTIAN ARMANDO VALLEMENDIVIL, a.k.a. Christian ValleMendivil, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 14, 2015** Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Christian Armando Valle-Mendivil appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 75-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, * 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). 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Valle-Mendivil contends that the district court erred by declining to award a minor-role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). We review a district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines de novo and its determination that a defendant was not a minor participant for clear error. See United States v. Hurtado, 760 F.3d 1065, 1068 (9th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1467 (2015). The record reflects that the court properly applied the Guidelines and our precedent, considering the totality of the circumstances, as well as Valle-Mendivil’s understanding of the scheme and his role in the smuggling operation. See id. at 1068-69. The district court properly considered the quantity of drugs, the compensation involved, and the fact that Valle-Mendivil allowed the vehicle to be registered in his name. Because “[a]ny of these facts alone may justify denial of a minor role,” id., the district court did not clearly err in denying the adjustment. AFFIRMED. 2 14-50502

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.