United States of America v. Pennina Ramirez

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
JC/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PENNINA RAMIREZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-50010
D.C. No. 3:08-cr-02767-LAB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Pennina Ramirez appeals from the 57-month sentence imposed following
her guilty-plea conviction for importation of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we
FILED
DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JC/Research 09-50010 2
affirm.
First, Ramirez contends the district court erred by denying her request for a
minor role adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). The district court did not
clearly err by declining to apply a minor role adjustment because, among other
things, Ramirez knowingly transported a substantial amount of narcotics and
planned on accepting money in return. See United States v. Hursh, 217 F.3d 761,
770 (9th Cir. 2000); United States v. Davis, 36 F.3d 1424, 1437 (9th Cir. 1994).
Second, Ramirez contends the district court misapplied the Guidelines by
erroneously substituting its judgment for the Sentencing Commission’s judgment
and declining to adjust downward. The district court did not misapply the
Guidelines because Ramirez failed to show that she was entitled to a minor role
adjustment. See Hursh, 217 F.3d at 770; Davis, 36 F.3d at 1437.
Finally, Ramirez contends the district court created an unwarranted
sentencing disparity under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) because her offense level should
have been reduced by five levels instead of two. This contention fails because the
record reflects that the district court properly calculated the guidelines and applied
the § 3553(a) factors at sentencing. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984,
991-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --