United States of America v. Javier Omar Durazo-Miranda

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JAVIER OMAR DURAZO-MIRANDA,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 22-50305
D.C. No.
3:21-cr-02642-DMS-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Dana M. Sabraw, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted January 9, 2024
Pasadena, California
Before: RAWLINSON, MELLOY,** and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Javier Omar Durazo-Miranda appeals his sentence for conspiracy to distribute
methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. Durazo-Miranda
pleaded guilty after selling more than 24 kilograms of methamphetamine to an
undercover agent. The district court applied a two-level enhancement for Durazo-
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The Honorable Michael J. Melloy, United States Circuit Judge for the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.
FILED
FEB 14 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Miranda’s role as an organizer under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c), found him ineligible for
safety-valve relief, and sentenced him to 151 months’ imprisonment followed by
five years of supervised release. “We review the district court’s interpretation of the
Sentencing Guidelines de novo, its application of the Guidelines to the facts of the
case for an abuse of discretion, and its factual findings for clear error.” United States
v. Hong, 938 F.3d 1040, 1051 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting United States v. Vallejos, 742
F.3d 902, 905 (9th Cir. 2014)). We affirm.
1. The district court did not clearly err in finding Durazo-Miranda was an
“organizer.” “[T]he term ‘organizer’ in § 3B1.1(c) applies to defendants who have
the ability and influence necessary to coordinate the activities of others to achieve
the desired result, whether or not they have a superior rank in a criminal hierarchy.”
United States v. Doe, 778 F.3d 814, 824 (9th Cir. 2015). “[O]nly ‘some control,’
which could include ‘organizational responsibility,’ is necessary to apply the
enhancement.” United States v. Vinge, 85 F.4th 1285, 1289 (9th Cir. 2023) (quoting
United States v. Kabir, 51 F.4th 820, 826 (9th Cir. 2022)). Durazo-Miranda
coordinated multiple participants in the procurement and delivery of
methamphetamine. Durazo-Miranda directed the coconspirator to provide the
methamphetamine in exchange for the undercover agent’s payment. Another time,
the undercover agent met with Durazo-Miranda and a third party to discuss a drug
purchase, and at that meeting, Durazo-Miranda described his own role as facilitating

-- 2 of 3 --

3
bicoastal and international drug distribution, explaining that he was a “coordinator”
for the operation. This evidence provided sufficient support for the district court’s
application of the role enhancement.
2. Because the district court did not err in determining that Durazo-Miranda
was an organizer pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c), the district court properly found
him ineligible for safety-valve relief under U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(4).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --