Duenas-Jimenez

United States v. Duenas-Jimenez

Good Law
206 F. App'x 723
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 14, 2006No. 05-10798California356 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Alejandro Duenas-Jimenez appeals from the 51-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, possession with intent to distribute marijuana, importation of methamphetamine, and importation of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A)(viii), 841(b)(1)(D), 952(a), 960(a)(1), 960(b)(1)(H), and 960(b)(4). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Duenas-Jimenez contends that the district court clearly erred by applying a 2-level downward adjustment for being a minor participant pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b), rather than a 4-level downward adjustment for being a minimal participant pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(a). *725 We disagree. The record reflects that Duenas-Jimenez imported a substantial amount of drugs and received an economic benefit. See United States v. Davis, 86 F.3d 1424 , 1436-37 (9th Cir.1994); United States v. Lui 941 F.2d 844, 849 (9th Cir. 1991) (“possession of a substantial amount of narcotics” is grounds for refusing to grant either a minor or minimal participant adjustment).

Duenas-Jimenez also contends that the sentence imposed by…

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.