United States v. Ivan Hernandez, 690 F. App'x 975 (9th Cir. 2017). · Go Syfert
United States v. Ivan Hernandez, 690 F. App'x 975 (9th Cir. 2017). 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.
Ivan Eduardo HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant
16-50257.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
May 11, 2017.
Unpublished opinion
690 F. App'x 975
Alicia Phillip Williams, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, Colin M. McDonald, Assistant U.S. Attorney, US Department of Justice, Southern District of California, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee, Nicholas De Pento, Law Office of Nicholas De Pento, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
Leavy, Nguyen, Reinhardt.
Unpublished  |  Criminal

MEMORANDUM **

Ivan Eduardo Hernandez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 71-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea convictions for importation of methamphetamine and heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Hernandez contends that the district court’s minor role analysis was flawed because the court refused to compare him to unknown participants in the drug trafficking organization. Assuming without deciding that the court was required to compare Hernandez to unidentified co-participants, we find no reversible error. The record reflects that, even if the court had considered a broader network of participants, it would not have concluded that Hernandez was “substantially less culpable” than the average participant in light of Hernandez’s repeated crossings and the amount of drugs and money involved. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A), (C).

The government correctly concedes that the written judgment erroneously imposes a 72-month sentence, rather than the 71-month sentence that the district court orally pronounced. Therefore, we vacate the judgment and remand so the district court can make the written judgment consistent with the unambiguous oral pronouncement of the sentence. See United States v. Hernandez, 795 F.3d 1159, 1169 (9th Cir. 2015).

AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct the judgment.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.