United States v. 2020-05-14 | 19-50210 | USA V. MANUEL ACOSTA-LOPEZ | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

MANUEL ACOSTA-LOPEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19-50210

D.C. No. 3:18-cr-05343-LAB-1

MEMORANDUM
*

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

Submitted May 6, 2020
**

Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Manuel Acosta-Lopez appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 90-month sentence imposed following his 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. § 1291, and we affirm.

*
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

MAY 14 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-50210
Acosta-Lopez contends that the district court erroneously denied his request
for a minor-role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. We review the district court’s
interpretation of the Guidelines de novo, its factual findings for clear error, 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). Contrary to Acosta-
Lopez’s argument, the record reflects that the district court properly considered the
factors listed in the commentary to the minor-role Guideline, see U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2
cmt. n.3(C), identified other likely participants in the scheme, and assessed
whether Acosta-Lopez was “substantially less culpable than the average
participant.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A). The court did not clearly err in any of
its factual findings, or abuse its discretion by concluding that Acosta-Lopez was
not entitled to a minor-role reduction. See United States v. Diaz, 884 F.3d 911,
916 (9th Cir. 2018).
AFFIRMED.