United States of America v. Maria Rosa Arteaga-Guzman

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MARIA ROSA ARTEAGA-GUZMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-30207
D.C. No. 1:16-cr-00225-EJL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 15, 2018**
Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Maria Rosa Arteaga-Guzman appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 70-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for
conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and
distribution of methamphetamine and possession with intent to distribute
* 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
AUG 20 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-30207
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Arteaga-Guzman contends that the district court erred in denying a
mitigating role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. She argues that the court
failed to consider or incorrectly applied the factors listed in the commentary to the
Guideline. We review the district court’s 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). The record shows that the district court considered the
relevant factors, see U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C), and did not abuse its discretion
in applying these factors to the facts of Arteaga-Guzman’s case, including her
participation in two face-to-face drug transactions and her involvement in traveling
to California with her co-defendant to obtain methamphetamine from the supplier.
In light of this holding, we do not address Arteaga-Guzman’s argument
regarding U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(16), which only applies when a defendant is
determined to have played a minimal role in the offense
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --