United States of America v. Arturo Alejandro Castillo- Gonzalez

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
ARTURO ALEJANDRO CASTILLO-
GONZALEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 10-10115
D.C. No. 4:09-cr-02234-FRZ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Frank R. Zapata, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 10, 2011**
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Arturo Alejandro Castillo-Gonzalez appeals from the 66-month sentence
imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of cocaine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(ii), and possession with
FILED
JAN 24 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-10115 2
intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and
(b)(1)(A)(ii)(II). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Castillo-Gonzalez contends that the district court erred by denying his
request for the mitigating role adjustment at U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. Under the facts of
this case, the district court did not clearly err by denying an adjustment for minimal
or minor role. See United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1282 (9th Cir. 2006)
(describing standard); see also United States v. Lui, 941 F.2d 844, 849 (9th Cir.
1991) (stating that a defendant “may be a courier without being either a minimal or
a minor participant,” and that “possession of a substantial amount of narcotics is
grounds for refusing to grant a sentence reduction”).
Castillo-Gonzalez further contends that his sentence was substantively
unreasonable. Considering the totality of the circumstances, Castillo-Gonzalez’s
below-Guidelines sentence was substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --