United States of America v. Freddie Montes, a.k.a. Fredrico Montes

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
FREDDIE MONTES, a.k.a. Fredrico
Montes,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-50423
D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00484-CAS-4
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 19, 2019**
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Freddie Montes appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the 200-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for multiple
drug offenses involving marijuana and methamphetamine, in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846 and 18 U.S.C. § 2. We have jurisdiction under
* 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).
FILED
FEB 27 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-50423
28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Montes contends that the district court erred by applying a four-level
aggravating role enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1. We review for abuse of
discretion. See United States v. Gasca-Ruiz, 852 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2017)
(en banc). Contrary to Montes’s contention, the district court was not required to
discuss expressly each aggravating-role factor. See United States v. Whitney, 673
F.3d 965, 975 (9th Cir. 2012) (“It is not necessary that the district court make
specific findings of fact to justify the imposition of the role enhancement.”). The
record demonstrates that the court was “well aware” of these factors at the time of
sentencing. United States v. Diaz, 884 F.3d 911, 916 (9th Cir. 2018). The record
also demonstrates that Montes exercised control over drug couriers who distributed
large quantities of methamphetamine and marijuana to co-conspirators, and was
responsible for coordinating high-level meetings between the La Familia drug
cartel and the Mexican Mafia prison gang concerning drug-trafficking activities.
On this record, the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing the
enhancement. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. n.4; Whitney, 673 F.3d at 975.
Montes next contends that the district court erred in imposing a 200-month
sentence because the record suggests that it intended to impose a 180-month
sentence. The record belies Montes’s contention. The district court repeatedly
stated on the record that it was imposing a sentence of 200 months. While the

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-50423
court initially considered the possibility of imposing a 180-month sentence, it later
explained that Montes’s extensive role in the drug conspiracy warranted a 200-
month sentence.
Finally, Montes contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable.
The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007). The below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light
of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances,
including the large quantity of drugs Montes distributed and his extensive role in
the drug conspiracy. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Montes has not demonstrated any
unwarranted sentencing disparities with the sentences of his co-conspirators.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --