USA V. MANUEL ACOSTA-LOPEZ, No. 19-50210 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAY 14 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 19-50210 D.C. No. 3:18-cr-05343-LAB-1 MEMORANDUM* MANUEL ACOSTA-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 6, 2020** Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. Manuel Acosta-Lopez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 90-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of 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 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). Acosta-Lopez contends that the district court erroneously denied his request for a minor-role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. We review the district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines de novo, its 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). Contrary to AcostaLopez’s argument, the record reflects that the district court properly considered the factors listed in the commentary to the minor-role Guideline, see U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C), identified other likely participants in the scheme, and assessed whether Acosta-Lopez was “substantially less culpable than the average participant.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A). The court did not clearly err in any of its factual findings, or abuse its discretion by concluding that Acosta-Lopez was not entitled to a minor-role reduction. See United States v. Diaz, 884 F.3d 911, 916 (9th Cir. 2018). AFFIRMED. 2 19-50210

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.