United States of America v. Jesus Alberto Reyna-Acevedo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JESUS ALBERTO REYNA-ACEVEDO,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-50009
D.C. No. 3:12-cr-02517-IEG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Irma E. Gonzalez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 10, 2014**
Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Jesus Alberto Reyna-Acevedo appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
importation of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C §§ 952 and 960. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Reyna-Acevedo contends that the district court violated Federal Rule of
FILED
MAR 13 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).
13-50009

-- 1 of 2 --

Criminal Procedure 32(i)(3)(B) by failing to resolve factual disputes relating to his
role in the offense. We review for plain error, see United States v. Christensen,
732 F.3d 1094, 1101 (9th Cir. 2013), and find none. Reyna-Acevedo did not file
objections to the presentence report, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(f), and neither his
sentencing memorandum nor his arguments at the hearing sufficiently alerted the
district court to the presence of a factual dispute to trigger the court’s obligations
under Rule 32(i)(3)(B). See United States v. Petri, 731 F.3d 833, 841 (9th Cir.)
(“Only specific factual objections trigger Rule 32(i)(3)(B).” (internal quotations
omitted)), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 681 (2013).
Reyna-Acevedo also contends that the district court erred by denying him a
role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). He argues that the court failed to apply
the correct legal standard and that its deficient explanation of its ruling on the issue
prevents meaningful appellate review. The record does not support the inference
that the district court applied the wrong legal standard. Furthermore, the record is
sufficient to permit appellate review and reflects that denial of the adjustment was
proper because Reyna-Acevedo failed to carry his burden of proving that he was
“substantially less culpable than the average participant” in the criminal scheme.
See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A); United States v. Rodriguez-Castro, 641 F.3d
1189, 1193 (9th Cir. 2011).
AFFIRMED.
13-50009 2

-- 2 of 2 --