United States of America v. Julio Adrian Manzano

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JULIO ADRIAN MANZANO,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-50496
D.C. No. 3:14-cr-03278-AJB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Anthony J. Battaglia, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Julio Adrian Manzano appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 42-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
FILED
APR 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

Manzano contends that the district court erred by denying his request for a
minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. He argues that the court ignored
several factors identified in the commentary to the minor role Guideline, relied on
improper factors, and effectively treated simple couriers as categorically barred
from receiving a role adjustment. Reviewing de novo, see United States v.
Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d 515, 522 (9th Cir. 2016), we conclude that the district
court did not err. The record reflects the district court applied the correct legal
standard and gave ample consideration to the factors listed in the commentary. See
U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A), (C). The court was not required to “tick off” the
factors to show that it had considered them. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d
984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, the court properly compared
Manzano’s culpability to that of his co-participants in the offense and did not rely
on any improper considerations. See Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d at 523. Finally,
the record shows that the court understood that Manzano was eligible for a minor
role adjustment, but concluded that the facts did not support an adjustment.
AFFIRMED.
15-50496 2

-- 2 of 2 --