United States of America v. Martin Adolfo Palafox- Cardenas

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
MARTIN ADOLFO PALAFOX-
CARDENAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-10133
D.C. No. 2:10-cr-00157-SMM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Stephen M. McNamee, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 10, 2012**
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Martin Adolfo Palafox-Cardenas appeals from the 144-month sentence
imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent
to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841
FILED
SEP 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-10133 2
(b)(1)(A)(viii), and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we
affirm.
Palafox-Cardenas contends that the district court applied the wrong standard
in considering his request for a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b),
and clearly erred in denying the adjustment. The record belies the contention that
the court applied the wrong legal standard in considering the adjustment. Because
Palafox-Cardenas failed to prove that he was “substantially less culpable than the
average participant” in the conspiracy, the court did not err in denying the
adjustment. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A); United States v. Rodriguez-Castro,
641 F.3d 1189, 1193 (9th Cir. 2011).
Palafox-Cardenas also contends that the district court procedurally erred by
failing to consider all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and by failing
to explain adequately the sentence imposed in light of his mitigating arguments.
The district court expressly considered the section 3553(a) factors and adequately
explained the sentence.
Finally, Palafox-Cardenas contends that his sentence is substantively
unreasonable. Under the totality of the circumstances and the section 3553(a)
sentencing factors, the sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --