United States of America v. Ines Celis-Lopez

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
INES CELIS-LOPEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-50526
D.C. No. 3:15-cr-01156-LAB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Ines Celis-Lopez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the 72-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
importation of heroin and methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and
960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
FILED
APR 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

Celis-Lopez contends that the district court erred by denying his request for
a minor role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). He argues that the court failed
to conduct the requisite comparative culpability analysis and erred in finding that
he was not a minor participant. We review the district court’s interpretation of the
Guidelines de novo, and its factual finding that a defendant was not a minor
participant for clear error. See United States v. Hurtado, 760 F.3d 1065, 1068 (9th
Cir. 2014). Contrary to Celis-Lopez’s argument, the court properly compared his
culpability to that of an average participant in his offense. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2
cmt. n.3(A). It specifically compared Celis-Lopez to the one co-participant to
whom Celis-Lopez asked to be compared, and also considered Celis-Lopez’s role
in the overall drug smuggling scheme. See United States v. Rojas-Millan, 234 F.3d
464, 473-74 (9th Cir. 2000). Furthermore, although the court acknowledged that
some of the facts supported a minor role adjustment in this case, it did not clearly
err in finding, based on the totality of the circumstances, that Celis-Lopez’s role in
the offense was not minor. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C); United States v.
Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d 519, 523 (9th Cir. 2016).
Celis-Lopez also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in
light of his mitigating circumstances. The district court did not abuse its
discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The below-
15-50526 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the large amount
of drugs that Celis-Lopez imported. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
AFFIRMED.
15-50526 3

-- 3 of 3 --