United States v. Melida Flores, 471 F. App'x 654 (9th Cir. 2012). · Go Syfert
United States v. Melida Flores, 471 F. App'x 654 (9th Cir. 2012). 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.
Melida FLORES, A.K.A. La Dona, A.K.A. Nancy, A.K.A. Seal L, Defendant-Appellant
10-50498.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Mar 8, 2012.
Unpublished opinion
471 F. App'x 654
Kevin M. Lally, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Christina T. Shay, Assistant U.S. Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee., John Carl Lemon, II, Law Offices of John C. Lemon, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Leavy, Thomas, Christen.
Unpublished

MEMORANDUM **

Melida Flores appeals from the 108-month sentence imposed following her[*655] guilty-plea conviction for two counts of conspiracy with intent to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; and eleven counts of possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and (b)(l)(B)(iii). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Flores contends that the district court erred by denying her a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). The district court did not commit clear error by concluding that Flores was not a minor participant. See United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1282-83 (9th Cir.2006).

Flores also contends that the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(3)(B) because it did not make sufficient findings in support of its conclusion that a minor role adjustment was not warranted. The court’s statements were sufficient. See United States v. Ingham, 486 F.3d 1068, 1074 (9th Cir. 2007) (Rule 32 findings “need only state the court’s resolution of the disputed issue[ ]”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

AFFIRMED.

**

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