United States of America v. Clarence Adolphus, a.k.a. Seal A

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
CLARENCE ADOLPHUS, a.k.a. Seal A,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 10-50368
D.C. No. 2:04-cr-00402-CAS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 14, 2013**
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Clarence Adolphus appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the 168-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 846; money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956; tax
FILED
MAY 21 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-50368 2
evasion, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201; and attempting to interfere with the
administration of revenue law, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7212(a). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Adolphus contends that the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 32 and prevented meaningful appellate review by failing to make
sufficient findings in response to his objection to the aggravating role adjustment.
Adolphus did not dispute any of the facts cited in the presentence report in support
of the adjustment; thus, Rule 32 did not require the court to say more than it did.
See United States v. Petri, No. 11-30337, 2013 WL 1490604, at *7 (9th Cir. Apr.
12, 2013). Furthermore, the court’s explanation for the aggravating role
adjustment is sufficient to permit appellate review.
Adolphus also contends that the district court erred by applying an
aggravating role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) because there was no
evidence that he had control and authority over another participant in the money
laundering offense. We do not reach this contention because, even if the district
court erred, any error was harmless. See United States v. Munoz-Camarena, 631
F.3d 1028, 1030 & n.5 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam). The district court imposed a
sentence below the Guidelines range that would have resulted had no enhancement
been imposed.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --