U.S. v. ZAMARRON-RUIZ, 332 Fed.Appx. 432 (9th Cir. 2009)
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel De JesusZAMARRON-RUIZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-10401.United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.Submitted August 20, 2009.[fn*]
Filed August 31, 2009.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.][fn*] The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P.34(a)(2).
Nicole Savel, Assistant U.S., USTU — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Andrea Lynn Matheson, Matheson Law Firm, P.C., Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Raner C. Collins, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 4:07-CR-01541-RCC.
Before WALLACE, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM[fn**]
[fn**] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Manuel De Jesus Zamarron-Ruiz appeals from the 70-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importing cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a) and960(a)(1), and possessing cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Zamarron-Ruiz contends that the district court erred when it failed to apply a minor role adjustment, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b), to his offense level calculation. The district court did not clearly err. See United States v.Murillo, 255 F.3d 1169, 1179 (9th Cir. 2001), overruledin part on other grounds; United States v. Lui,941 F.2d 844, 849 (9th Cir. 1991).
Zamarron-Ruiz also contends that the district court improperly presumed that a guidelines sentence was reasonable, the district court failed to consider some of the18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and that his sentence is unreasonable. We review these contentions for reasonableness.Page 433
The district court did not procedurally err and the sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See UnitedStates v. Catty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.