Romero
United States v. Romero
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Michael Romero appeals the 121 month sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty plea conviction to one count of importing cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 , 960. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.
Romero argues that the district court erred by sentencing him according to the guidelines for the substance he actually he imported — cocaine—and not based on the controlled substance he thought he was importing — marijuana. Romero’s challenge has been squarely foreclosed by this Court. It is well-established that “the base level offense for guideline sentencing may be determined by the volume of the drug actually imported, whether or not the defendant knows ... the nature of the substance — if he knows only that he is importing a controlled substance.” United States v. Salazar, 5 F.3d 445, 446 (9th Cir.1993). There is no question that Romero knew he was importing a controlled substance, he was indicted for and pleaded guilty to importation of cocaine, a Schedule II controlled substance. Accordingly, the district court correctly imposed a sentence based on what Romero actually possessed.