Narrative Opinion Summary
Jorge Daniel Ramirez-Armas appeals his 87-month sentence following a guilty plea for importation of methamphetamine and aiding and abetting, violating 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. The court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirms the sentence. Ramirez-Armas argues that the district court erred by denying a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b), but the court found no error, referencing precedents from *United States v. Cantrell* and *United States v. Hursh*. He also claims his sentence is unreasonable because the district court did not consider his cooperation with the government, but the court deemed the sentence reasonable, citing *United States v. Carty*. The decision is affirmed and is not suitable for publication or precedent, except as specified by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Denial of Minor Role Adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The district court's decision to deny a minor role adjustment is upheld, finding no error in its application.
Reasoning: Ramirez-Armas argues that the district court erred by denying a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b), but the court found no error, referencing precedents from *United States v. Cantrell* and *United States v. Hursh*.
Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court has jurisdiction to review the sentence following a guilty plea.
Reasoning: The court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirms the sentence.
Publication and Precedent Restrictionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The decision is not suitable for publication or as a precedent except where specified by the Ninth Circuit rules.
Reasoning: The decision is affirmed and is not suitable for publication or precedent, except as specified by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Reasonableness of Sentencesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court deems the sentence reasonable despite the appellant's claim of cooperation with the government not being considered.
Reasoning: He also claims his sentence is unreasonable because the district court did not consider his cooperation with the government, but the court deemed the sentence reasonable, citing *United States v. Carty*.