United States of America v. GLORIA HILDA NAVARRETE, AKA Gloria Navarrete

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
GLORIA HILDA NAVARRETE, AKA
Gloria Navarrete,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-50187
D.C. No.
3:15-cr-00596-BEN-3
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted August 10, 2017
Pasadena, California
Before: REINHARDT, KOZINSKI, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
“We review the district court’s interpretation of the [U.S. Sentencing]
Guidelines de novo, the district court’s application of the Guidelines to the facts of
the case for abuse of discretion, and the district court’s factual findings for clear
FILED
SEP 14 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.

-- 1 of 2 --

error.” United States v. Treadwell, 593 F.3d 990, 999 (9th Cir. 2010). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
1. The district court increased Navarrete’s sentence under U.S.S.G.
§ 2D1.1(b)(12) for maintaining a stash house. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12), cmt.
n.17 (2015). Under the circumstances of this case, the district court did not err by
imposing a sentence enhancement under § 2D1.1(b)(12).
2. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c) provides for an upward adjustment based on the
defendant’s role in the offense. The district court found that Navarrete was “a lot
closer to the top [of the drug-trafficking organization] than she was . . . to the
bottom.” The record supports the district court’s findings. The district court did
not err when it increased Navarrete’s sentence by two levels for her role in the
offense. See United States v. Maldonado, 215 F.3d 1046, 1050–51 (9th Cir. 2000);
United States v. Varela, 993 F.2d 686, 691–92 (9th Cir. 1993).
AFFIRMED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --