NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 26 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 20-50007 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:19-cr-02180-LAB-1 v. MEMORANDUM* VICTOR ARMANDO ACEVEDO, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted March 3, 2021 Pasadena, California Before: HIGGINSON,** HURWITZ, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges. Memorandum joined by Judge HURWITZ and Judge COLLINS; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge HIGGINSON Victor Acevedo appeals the 78-month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to import methamphetamine into the United States in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960, 963 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Stephen A. Higginson, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation. and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). We remand with limited instructions to amend the judgment, but we otherwise affirm. 1. Acevedo argues that the district court committed plain error by making a factual mistake in rejecting Acevedo’s request to consider his young age and immaturity as mitigating factors in determining his sentence. Although the record does suggest that the district court mistakenly thought that Acevedo worked twice as many hours and consequently earned twice as much as was actually the case, Acevedo has failed to show that any such error “affected the outcome of the district court proceedings,” much less that it “‘seriously affect[ed] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734, 736 (1993) (citation omitted). The district court’s overall comments confirm that its conclusion that Acevedo should not be considered young and immature was based on a number of factors, including that he was in his early 20s, he was working, and he had taken on “family responsibility to help support his mother.” The record does not support the inference that any miscalculation as to the number of hours and total pay would have altered the court’s assessment that Acevedo was doing “things a mature person would do.” Moreover, even if any such correction might have caused the court to consider Acevedo somewhat less mature, Acevedo has not shown that any marginal difference in mitigating value based on that asserted lesser maturity would have 2 altered the court’s overall assessment of the relevant sentencing factors. 2. Acevedo argues that the district court erred by rejecting his request for a minor-role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. We review the “‘district court’s identification of the correct legal standard de novo’” and its “‘application of the Sentencing Guidelines to the facts of a given case . . . for abuse of discretion.’” United States v. Diaz, 884 F.3d 911, 914 (9th Cir. 2018) (citations omitted). We find no prejudicial error. In addressing whether …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals