United States of America v. Angel Salinas-Mandujano

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ANGEL SALINAS-MANDUJANO,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 19-50100
D.C. No. 3:14-cr-01656-BEN-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 19, 2019**
Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Angel Salinas-Mandujano appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 75-month sentence and the 5-year term of supervised release
imposed on remand following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction
* 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 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 19-50100
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Salinas-Mandujano contends that the district court erred by denying his
request for a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. We review the
district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines de novo, and its 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 government’s arguments,
which the district court adopted, support the court’s conclusion that Salinas-
Mandujano did not show that, as compared to all possible co-participants in the
offense, he was not “substantially less culpable than the average participant.” See
U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A). Though the district court did not explicitly discuss
each of the Guideline factors, see U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C), it was not required
to do so, particularly given that this was Salinas-Mandujano’s third sentencing
hearing before the same judge and each hearing primarily concerned the minor role
adjustment. See United States v. Diaz, 884 F.3d 911, 914-15 (9th Cir. 2018). The
court did not abuse its discretion in denying the adjustment. See United States v.
Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d 519, 523 (9th Cir. 2016) (district court may deny minor
role reduction even if some factors weigh in favor of granting it).
Salinas-Mandujano next contends that the district court procedurally erred
by failing to explain the term of supervised release adequately. We review for
plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 19-50100
2010), and conclude that there is none. The record as a whole reflects the district
court’s reasons for imposing the above-Guidelines term of supervised release. See
United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (adequate
explanation may be inferred from the record as a whole).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --