United States v. Daniel Castaneda-Martinez

Good Law
425 F. App'x 569
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 29, 201110-10041, 10-10043, 10-10046, 10-10086California1,132 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Daniel Castaneda-Martinez, Raymundo Arias-Ceja, and Juan Carlos Nunez-Romero appeal their sentences after their convictions upon guilty pleas to the crime of conspiracy to possess drugs with intent to distribute them. See 21 U.S.C. § 846 . Jose Ramirez-Alvarez appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea to the same conspiracy charges. We affirm.

(1) Castaneda, Arias and Nunez all assert that the district court erred when it denied them a downward adjustment to their offense levels under the United States Sentencing Guidelines for their acceptance of responsibility. See USSG § 3E1.1. We disagree. Because the district court “is in a unique position to evaluate a defendant’s acceptance of responsibility,” while we do review its findings for clear error, we accord it “great deference.” The burden of clearly demonstrating acceptance of responsibility is upon the defendant, and, here, no clear demonstration was forthcoming. The defendants did not fall within the “rare situations” commentary because they pled before they were actually convicted. See USSG § 3E1.1, comment, (n.2). Nor did they fall within the “significant evidence of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.