United States of America v. Daniel Aldecoa-Gonzalez

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
DANIEL ALDECOA-GONZALEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-10376
D.C. No. 4:10-cr-02186-CKJ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 21, 2012**
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Daniel Aldecoa-Gonzalez appeals from the 41-month sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of cocaine, in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 925(a), and 960(a)(1), (b)(2)(B)(ii), and possession with intent to
FILED
MAR 05 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-10376 2
distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(ii)(II). We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Aldecoa-Gonzalez contends that the district court erred by declining to
award a minor role adjustment because he was less culpable than the principals in
the offense. The district court did not clearly err by declining to award the
adjustment. See United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1283 (9th Cir.2006).
Aldecoa-Gonzalez also contends that the district court erred by not granting
a third-point reduction for acceptance of responsibility. This contention lacks
merit. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b), cmt. n. 6; see also United States v. Johnson, 581
F.3d 994, 1004 (9th Cir. 2006).
Aldecoa-Gonzalez finally contends the district court procedurally erred by
failing properly to calculate the advisory Guidelines range. This contention is
belied by the record. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991 (9th Cir. 2008)
(en banc).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --