United States v. Aron Ortiz

facts of the case for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Diaz, 884 F.3d 911,

914 (9th Cir. 2018).

The record does not support Ortiz’s contention that the district court failed to

consider all of the factors relevant to the minor-role reduction or the alleged

“caveats” as to any of the factors. The court stated that it had reviewed Ortiz’s

sentencing memorandum, which discussed Ortiz’s arguments as to each of the five

factors, and we assume that district judges know the law. See id. at 916. The

21-50091 court’s failure to discuss all five factors on the record does not undermine that

presumption, especially given defense counsel’s statement at the sentencing

hearing that he was “not making an argument for minor role, so I don’t think we

need to go into all of the analysis.”

Moreover, the record shows that the district court did not misapply the

Guideline or abuse its discretion in denying the reduction. The court cited the

proper standard for determining whether the adjustment applies and explained that

it did not believe the facts justified the reduction, given Ortiz’s admission that he

had smuggled on two previous…