U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2012

United States v. Daniel Aldecoa-Gonzalez

United States v. Daniel Aldecoa-Gonzalez
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided March 5, 2012 · Fernandez, McKeown, Bybee
470 F. App'x 667

United States v. Daniel Aldecoa-Gonzalez

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Daniel Aldeeoa-Gonzalez appeals from the 41-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), and 960(a)(1), (b)(2)(B)(ii), and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(l)(B)(ii)(II). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Aldeeoa-Gonzalez contends that the district court erred by declining to award a minor role adjustment because he was less culpable than the principals in the offense. The district court did not clearly err by declining to award the adjustment. See United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1283 (9th Cir. 2006).

Aldeeoa-Gonzalez also contends that the district court erred by not granting a third-point reduction for acceptance of responsibility. This contention lacks merit. See U.S.S.G. § 3El.l(b), cmt. n. 6; see also United States v. Johnson, 581 F.3d 994, 1004 (9th Cir. 2009).

Aldeeoa-Gonzalez finally contends the district court procedurally erred by failing properly to calculate the advisory Guidelines range. This contention is belied by the record. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.