USA V. ALFONSO BANDERAS-MARTINEZ, No. 17-30232 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 29 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-30232 D.C. No. 1:16-cr-00053-SPW v. MEMORANDUM* ALFONSO BANDERAS-MARTINEZ, a.k.a. Alfonso Martinez-Solorio, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 22, 2018** Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges. Alfonso Banderas-Martinez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). affirm. Banderas-Martinez contends that the district court erred by denying a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its application of the Guidelines to the facts for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Gasca-Ruiz, 852 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). The record shows that the district court denied the minor role adjustment after considering each of the factors, see U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C), and did not base the denial on clearly erroneous factual findings. The district court’s decision to deny a minor role reduction was not an abuse of discretion in light of Banderas-Martinez’s participation in multiple high-quantity deliveries to several lesser associates and the amount of methamphetamine involved in the offense. See United States v. Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d 519, 523 (9th Cir. 2016). AFFIRMED. 2 17-30232

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.