United States of America v. Leonardo Nicolas-Blas

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
LEONARDO NICOLAS-BLAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-50412
D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00136-ODW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Otis D. Wright, II, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 14, 2013**
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Leonardo Nicolas-Blas appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
conspiracy to harbor and conceal illegal aliens, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(I). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we
FILED
MAY 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-50412 2
affirm.
Nicolas-Blas contends that the district court erred by denying his request for
a role adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. The record reflects that the court
properly considered Nicolas-Blas’s conduct as compared to the other participants
in the conspiracy in assessing whether to grant the adjustment. Because Nicolas-
Blas failed to prove that he was substantially less culpable than the average
participant, the district court did not clearly err by denying the adjustment. See
U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A); United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1282-83
(9th Cir. 2006).
Nicolas-Blas next contends that the district court violated Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 32(i)(3)(B) by failing to address his argument that his criminal
history category was overstated. Nicolas-Blas’s contention is without merit
because his legal challenge did not trigger the district court’s obligations under
Rule 32, which only applies to factual challenges to the presentence report. See
United States v. Petri, No. 11-30337, 2013 WL 1490604, at *7 (9th Cir. Apr. 12,
2013).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --