United States of America v. Sergio Venegas-Martin Del Campo

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SERGIO VENEGAS-MARTIN DEL
CAMPO,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-50012
D.C. No. 3:08-cr-02627-LAB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 5, 2010**
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Sergio Venegas-Martin Del Campo appeals from the 57-month sentence
imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of cocaine, in
FILED
APR 15 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

09-50012 2
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, and we affirm.
Venegas-Martin Del Campo contends the district court erred by denying his
request for a minor role adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) because he
was merely a courier of the drugs involved. The record reflects that Venegas-
Martin Del Campo knowingly transported a substantial amount of narcotics, see
United States v. Hursh, 217 F.3d 761, 770 (9th Cir. 2000), and planned on
accepting money in return, see United States v. Davis, 36 F.3d 1424, 1437 (9th Cir.
1994). Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err by declining to apply a
minor role adjustment. See United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1283-84
(9th Cir. 2006).
Further, the district court did not misapply the guidelines because Venegas-
Martin Del Campo failed to carry his burden of proving that he was entitled to a
minor role adjustment. See Hursh, 217 F.3d at 770; Davis, 36 F.3d at 1437.
Venegas-Martin Del Campo also contends his sentence is unreasonable
because the district court: (1) failed to apply the parsimony principle; (2) created
an unwarranted sentencing disparity among drug importation cases; and (3) based
its sentence on a clearly erroneous fact. The record shows that the district court did
not procedurally err and that Venegas-Martin Del Campo’s sentence is not

-- 2 of 3 --

09-50012 3
substantively unreasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 994-
96 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --