United States of America v. Eileen Ann Garcia

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EILEEN ANN GARCIA,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 14-50198
D.C. No. 3:13-cr-03761-BEN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 22, 2015**
Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Eileen Ann Garcia appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the 71-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for
importation of methamphetamine and aiding and abetting, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
FILED
APR 28 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

§§ 952 and 960 and 18 U.S.C. § 2. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
and we affirm.
Garcia contends that the district court committed two legal errors in denying
her request for a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. First, she
contends that the court failed to take into account her lack of actual knowledge of
the drugs in the truck or the structure and operations of the smuggling
organization. We review de novo the district court’s interpretation of the
guidelines and for clear error the district court’s factual determination that a
defendant is not a minor participant. See United States v. Hurtado, 760 F.3d 1065,
1068 (9th Cir. 2014), cert. denied 135 S. Ct. 1467 (2015). The district court did
not clearly err in determining that Garcia failed to prove that she was entitled to the
adjustment. The court properly considered the totality of the circumstances in
making its determination, including Garcia’s knowledge and understanding of the
criminal enterprise. See Hurtado, 760 F.3d at 1069.
Garcia next contends that the district court erred by preventing defense
counsel from addressing Garcia’s role in bringing her co-defendant into the
offense. Contrary to Garcia’s contention, the record reveals that her counsel was
///
14-50198 2

-- 2 of 3 --

afforded opportunities to present arguments in favor of the minor role adjustment
and to address the relevant facts. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(4)(A)(i).
AFFIRMED.
14-50198 3

-- 3 of 3 --