USA V. REYNA NEGRETE, No. 17-50234 (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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 29 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-50234 D.C. No. 3:14-cr-03438-BEN v. MEMORANDUM* REYNA NEGRETE, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 22, 2018** Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges. Reyna Negrete appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 87-month sentence imposed upon remand following her guilty-plea conviction for importation of methamphetamine, cocaine, and 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 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). Negrete contends that the district court erred by denying a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. She argues that the district court improperly failed to consider all likely participants in the offense and did not apply the factors listed in the commentary to the Guideline. We review the district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines de novo 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 compared Negrete to the two coparticipants in the offense she identified, and considered Negrete’s arguments about the larger drug organization. Contrary to Negrete’s contention, the court considered the factors listed in the commentary to the Guideline, see U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C), which were discussed in Negrete’s sentencing memorandum and at the sentencing hearing, and did not treat Negrete’s courier status as dispositive. In light of the totality of the circumstances, including the large quantities of different types of drugs involved, the extent of Negrete’s involvement with the drug organization, and her prior successful drug crossing, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a minor role adjustment. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A), (C). AFFIRMED. 2 17-50234
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.
