United States v. Arturo Castillo-Gonzalez, 411 F. App'x 966 (9th Cir. 2011). · Go Syfert
United States v. Arturo Castillo-Gonzalez, 411 F. App'x 966 (9th Cir. 2011). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Arturo Alejandro CASTILLO-GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant
10-10115.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Jan 24, 2011.
Unpublished opinion
411 F. App'x 966
Christina Marie Cabanillas, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee., Ramiro Flores, Jr., Flores & Haywood, PLLC, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Beezer, Tallman, Callahan.
Unpublished

MEMORANDUM **

Arturo Alejandro Castillo-Gonzalez appeals from the 66-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960(a)(1) and (b)(l)(B)(ii), and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(l)(A)(ii)(II). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Castillo-Gonzalez contends that the district court erred by denying his request for the mitigating role adjustment at U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. Under the facts of this case, the district court did not clearly err by denying an adjustment for minimal or minor role. See United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1282 (9th Cir.2006) (describing standard); see also United States v. Lui, 941 F.2d 844, 849 (9th Cir.1991) (stating that a defendant “may be a courier without being either a minimal or a[*968] minor participant,” and that “possession of a substantial amount of narcotics is grounds for refusing to grant a sentence reduction”).

Castillo-Gonzalez further contends that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. Considering the totality of the circumstances, Castillo-Gonzalez’s below-Guidelines sentence was substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

AFFIRMED.

**

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