United States of America v. Martha Lupita James

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARTHA LUPITA JAMES,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 14-50241
D.C. No. 3:13-cr-04442-BEN-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 17, 2015**
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
Martha James appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the
65-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for importation of
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
JUN 17 2015
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).

-- 1 of 3 --

James contends that the district court erred in several ways when it denied
her a minor role adjustment. First, James argues that the district court applied the
wrong legal standard by ignoring the culpability of others in the smuggling
enterprise. There is no evidence in the record that the district court improperly
ignored the culpability of other participants. Moreover, contrary to James’s
suggestion, the court was not required to compare her conduct to the conduct of
hypothetical participants. See United States v. Rosas, 615 F.3d 1058, 1068 (9th
Cir. 2010).
James also contends that the district court erred by failing to take into
account her limited knowledge about the drug operation. The district court
properly took into account the totality of the circumstances and did not clearly err
by concluding that James failed to meet her burden of proving that she was entitled
to a minor role adjustment. See United States v. Hurtado, 760 F.3d 1065, 1068-69
(9th Cir. 2014); United States v. Rodriguez-Castro, 641 F.3d 1189, 1193 (9th Cir.
2011); United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1283 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, James argues that the district court relied on improper factors when
denying the minor role adjustment. She maintains that, to show greater culpability,
the district court improperly relied on facts that are inherent in being a courier,
imposing standards that would make it impossible for any courier to qualify for a
2

-- 2 of 3 --

minor role adjustment. As this court has made clear, being a courier does not
automatically entitle a defendant to a minor role adjustment. See United States v.
Hurtado, 760 F.3d 1065, 1069 (9th Cir. 2014); United States v. Rodriguez-Castro,
641 F.3d 1189, 1193 (9th Cir. 2011). Moreover, being paid to drive a very large
quantity of methamphetamine into the United States by oneself is not inherent in
being a courier. Many couriers in the United States do not engage in this conduct.
James asserts that, when denying the minor role adjustment, the district
court improperly relied on its concern about: 1) the effect methamphetamine has
on society and the court; 2) whether the defendant’s proposed sentence was out of
proportion with the amount of methamphetamine in the load car; 3) the
relationship between lower sentences and the number of methamphetamine
smuggling cases in the Southern District of California; 4) how the defendant’s
proposed sentence compared to the nationwide average sentence; and 5) whether
James should have known better about the bad effects of drugs given her nursing
training. However, it is clear that all of this discussion cited by James took part in
the context of the district court’s discussion of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, not
as part of its discussion of the minor role analysis.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --