United States of America v. Angel Ivan Sanchez

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
ANGEL IVAN SANCHEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-10399
D.C. No. 1:08-cr-00067-LJO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Angel Ivan Sanchez appeals from the 30-month sentence imposed following
his guilty-plea conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(D). We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-10399 2
Sanchez contends that the district court erred at sentencing by miscalculating
the applicable range under the Sentencing Guidelines. Specifically, Sanchez
contends that the district court misapplied the burden of proof in determining the
applicable drug quantity for which Sanchez was responsible, and erred by
determining that Sanchez knowingly possessed all of the drugs found in his
vehicle. The record reflects that the district court applied the correct legal
standard, and did not err by determining that Sanchez was responsible for all of the
drugs found in his vehicle. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(A), cmt. n.2(a)(1).
Sanchez further contends that the district court applied an incorrect legal
standard and erred by denying him a minor role adjustment under the Sentencing
Guidelines. The record reflects that the district court properly considered whether
Sanchez was substantially less culpable than his co-participants in the offense, and
that it did not clearly err by determining that Sanchez failed to show that he was
entitled to the adjustment. See United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1282-84
(9th Cir. 2006).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --