142 F3d 446 United States of America v. Enriquez-Santiago
142 F.3d 446
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Samuel ENRIQUEZ-SANTIAGO, aka Jose Luis Caballero,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 97-50333.
DC No. CR-96-00129-AHS-1.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
.
Submitted** April 10, 1998.
Decided April 29, 1998.
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Appeal from the United States District Court Central District of California Alicemarie H. Stotler, District Judge, Presiding.
Before GIBSON,*** SCHROEDER and PREGERSON, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM*
On October 8, 1996, Samuel Enriquez-Santiago was arrested by the California Highway Patrol after DEA agents observed him driving away from his apartment carrying a suspicious package. The package was later determined to contain cocaine. On September 18, 1996, Enriquez-Santiago had been involved in two transactions involving the distribution of methamphetamine. Enriquez-Santiago pleaded guilty to possessing cocaine with the intent to distribute See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1994). At sentencing, the district court considered Enriquez-Santiago's involvement in the September 18th transactions as "relevant conduct" under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(2).
On appeal, Enriquez-Santiago argues that the district court erred in considering his participation in the September 18th transactions as "relevant conduct" under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(2). Enriquez-Santiago's involvement in the September 18th transactions constitutes relevant conduct if it was "part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction." U.S .S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(2). "[T]he essential components of the section 1B1.3(a)(2) analysis are similarity, regularity, and temporal proximity." United States v. Hahn, 960 F.2d 903, 910 (9th Cir.1992).
We review a district court's interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo, and we review the factual findings underlying the sentencing decision for clear error. See United States v. Robinson, 94 F.3d 1325, 1327 (9th Cir.1996).
We conclude that the district court correctly determined that Enriquez-Santiago's involvement in the September 18th transactions was relevant conduct under section 1B1.3(a)(2). Enriquez-Santiago participated in the September 18th transactions just three weeks prior to his October 8th arrest. The September 18th and October 8th transactions were similar in nature because, both times, Enriquez-Santiago traveled in his car with drugs to make deliveries. Furthermore, the government proved the regularity of the conduct because Enriquez-Santiago admitted that he had been making such deliveries for one month prior to this arrest and was paid $100 a day to make the deliveries. Because ample evidence existed to establish that Enriquez-Santiago's participation in the September 18th transactions was relevant conduct for sentencing purposes, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a) and Ninth Cir.Rule 34-4
* The Honorable Floyd R. Gibson, Senior Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3