NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 16 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 19-50360

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.

3:18-cr-04217-LAB-1 v. JESUS ALFREDO RAMIREZ, AKA Chuy, MEMORANDUM*

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted August 5, 2021 Pasadena, California Before: PAEZ, CALLAHAN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Following a jury trial, Jesus Ramirez was convicted of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846; he received a below- Guidelines sentence of twenty years. We affirm the conviction and sentence.

585 F.3d 1223, 1230 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Rodriguez, 851 F.3d at 942.

Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in concluding that § 2518(3)(c) was satisfied because the wiretap was essential to the investigation. See Rodriguez, 851 F.3d at 938. The government was investigating what it believed to be a far- reaching methamphetamine distribution conspiracy with links to local gangs and foreign sources. See United States v. Reed, 575 F.3d 900, 909 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The issuing court has considerable discretion in finding necessity, particularly when the case involves the investigation of a conspiracy.”). It sought the wiretap only after employing numerous alternative techniques over several months. See United States v. McGuire, 307 F.3d 1192, 1196–97 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[L]aw enforcement officials need not exhaust every conceivable alternative before obtaining a wiretap.”). And it explained, in case-specific terms, why those techniques had not produced information needed to “develop an effective case against those involved in the conspiracy.” See Reed, 575 F.3d at 909 (cleaned up).

“reason to know[] that other retailers” were involved in the conspiracy. Id. at 1458 (cleaned up). Although Esho’s arrest ended his role in the conspiracy, Gonzalez “kept it going” by stepping into Esho’s shoes. See United States v. Patterson, 819 F.2d 1495, 1502 (9th Cir. 1987).

responsibility.” United States v. Egge, 223 F.3d 1128, 1133 (9th Cir. 2000); U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b) cmt. background. Nor did the court abuse its discretion in applying the Guideline. As the importer and supplier of methamphetamine, Ramirez bore more “relative responsibility” than the individual dealers who simply came to him for product. See Egge, 223 F.3d at 1133. And the evidence supported the requisite finding that Ramirez “supervised or exercised some degree of control over at least one participant in an extensive criminal scheme.” See United States v. Herrera, 974 F.3d 1040, 1046 (9th Cir. 2020); see also, e.g., United States v. Garcia, 497 F.3d 964, 970 (9th Cir. 2007) (applying enhancement where defendant exercised control over another by fronting her drugs “while threatening to harm her if she did not repay him”); United States v. Franco, 136 F.3d 622, 631 (9th Cir. 1998) (applying enhancement where defendant asked participant to run an errand for him and to set up a drug transaction).

AFFIRMED.