United States of America v. Martha Yolanda Rosales

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
MARTHA YOLANDA ROSALES,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-50039
D.C. No. 3:11-cr-02968-LAB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 24, 2013**
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Martha Yolanda Rosales appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 120-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction
for importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
OCT 03 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-50039 2
Rosales challenges the substantive reasonableness of her mandatory
minimum sentence. She contends that the district court should have compelled the
government to file a motion for a substantial assistance departure under U.S.S.G.
§ 5K1.1. We disagree.
Section 5K1.1 does not impose a duty on the government to move for a
substantial assistance departure. See United States v. Flores, 559 F.3d 1016, 1019
(9th Cir. 2009). Even when a defendant has provided substantial assistance, this
court cannot grant relief “unless the government’s refusal to file a § 5K1.1 motion
was based on impermissible motives, constituted a breach of a plea agreement, or
was not rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose.” Id. Rosales’s
allegations do not meet this standard.
Because the district court lacked discretion to sentence Rosales below the
mandatory minimum, see United States v. Wipf, 620 F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th Cir.
2010), her substantive reasonableness argument fails.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --