United States of America v. Isela Alejandra Campos

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ISELA ALEJANDRA CAMPOS,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 18-50044
D.C. No. 3:17-cr-01731-BEN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 15, 2019**
Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Isela Alejandra Campos appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 108-month sentence and 5-year term of supervised release imposed
following her guilty-plea conviction for importation of methamphetamine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
* 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).
FILED
JAN 18 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-50044
§ 1291, and we affirm.
Campos first contends that the district court misinterpreted and misapplied
the minor role Guideline, U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, and its commentary in denying her
request for a minor role reduction. We review the district court’s interpretation of
the Guidelines de novo and its application of the Guidelines to the facts for abuse
of discretion. See United States v. Gasca-Ruiz, 852 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir.
2017) (en banc).
The record reveals that the district court applied the correct legal standard,
asking whether Campos was “substantially less culpable than the average
participant.” See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A). Contrary to Campos’s claim, the
district court did not refuse to apply the five factors listed in the commentary, see
U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C), but rather concluded that they did not weigh in
Campos’s favor because her allegedly limited knowledge about the drug
organization and its participants was not credible. We defer to the district court’s
credibility determinations. See United States v. Nelson, 137 F.3d 1094, 1110 (9th
Cir. 1998). In light of Campos’s evolving story, and the very large quantity of
drugs she imported, the court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that
Campos’s role in the offense was more significant than she claimed and that she
was not entitled to a minor role adjustment.
Campos next contends that the district court failed to explain the sentence

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-50044
adequately and that the 108-month sentence is substantively unreasonable. The
district court explained that, notwithstanding Campos’s mitigating circumstances, a
108-month sentence was warranted in light of the seriousness of the offense, and
the need to deter and to protect the public. This explanation was sufficient. See
United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, the
district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a low-end sentence, which is
substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and
the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007).
Finally, Campos contends that the district court erred by failing to calculate
the supervised release Guidelines range and by failing to explain the 5-year term of
supervised release. Reviewing for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-
Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), we conclude that there is none
because Campos has not shown a reasonable probability that her sentence would
have been different absent the alleged errors, see United States v. Dallman, 533
F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --