United States of America v. Robert English Trent

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERT ENGLISH TRENT,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-50608
D.C. No. 3:13-cr-02433-LAB-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 12, 2014 **
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
Robert English Trent appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 40-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
importation of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
MAR 17 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 --

Trent contends that the district court refused to apply the minor role analysis
required by the Sentencing Guidelines, the Sentencing Commission, and the law of
this Court. In support of these contentions, he claims that the district court denied
the minor role adjustment because it took the position that those who drive are not
entitled to minor role adjustments, opined that couriers are not lower level
offenders, and found the average courier to be an average participant. These
claims are belied by the record.
Trent also contends that the district court improperly refused to compare the
defendant to other participants in the offense. The record reflects that the district
court applied the correct legal standard, relying on the specific facts of the case and
determining whether Trent was substantially less culpable than the average
participant. See United States v. Hurtado, 760 F.3d 1065, 1068-69 (9th Cir. 2014);
United States v. Rodriguez-Castro, 641 F.3d 1189, 1193 (9th Cir. 2011); United
States v. Rosas, 615 F.3d 1058, 1068 (9th Cir. 2010); United States v. Cantrell, 433
F.3d 1269, 1283 (9th Cir. 2006).
We also reject Trent’s contention that, even if the district court correctly
interpreted the Sentencing Guidelines, it clearly erred in denying the minor role
adjustment. The record supports the district court’s determination that Trent failed
to carry his burden of proving that he was entitled to the minor role adjustment.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

See Hurtado, 760 F.3d at 1069; Rodriguez-Castro, 641 F.3d at 1193; Cantrell, 433
F.3d at 1282-83.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --