United States v. Cooley

── United States v. Cooley ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 28, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 28 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 25-309 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 4:24-cr-00910-SHR-MAA-1 v. MEMORANDUM* SHARNESIA LATRICE COOLEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Scott H. Rash, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted May 19, 2026 Phoenix, Arizona Before: GOULD, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Defendant-Appellant Sharnesia Cooley (“Cooley”) challenges the district court’s application of three sentencing enhancements: (1) four levels for transporting an unaccompanied minor under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(4); (2) two levels for recklessly creating a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to another person during the offense under § 2L1.1(b)(6); and (3) six levels for transporting an unlawful alien * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. who suffered a permanent or life-threatening injury during the offense under § 2L1.1(b)(7). Cooley also challenges her 60-month below-guidelines sentence as substantively unreasonable. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. We review interpretations of Sentencing Guidelines de novo and “application of the guidelines to the facts for an abuse of discretion.” United States v. Herrera, 974 F.3d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 2020). The substantive reasonableness of a sentence is also reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Blinkinsop, 606 F.3d 1110, 1116 (9th Cir. 2010). 1. The district court did not abuse its discretion by applying the four-point enhancement under § 2L1.1(b)(4) for transporting an unaccompanied minor. This enhancement, contrary to Cooley’s contention, does not require that it be reasonably foreseeable that she would transport an unaccompanied minor. Reasonable foreseeability is relevant when assessing jointly undertaken criminal activity and the foreseeable acts and omissions of others in the criminal scheme. See United States v. Reyes, 772 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2014); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B). Here, under § 1B1.3(a)(1)(A), we assess Cooley’s own actions and omissions, not those of others. There was also sufficient record evidence that Cooley transported an unaccompanied minor. The minor’s medical intake form indicates that the hospital was “[u]nable to locate family” and that Border Patrol was “unable to provide any 2 25-309 information for relatives.” Further, the agency ultimately identified the minor through the Mexican Consulate, which identified the minor’s father, who was not in the car with him. Cooley contends that the agency’s lack of questioning of the other unlawful aliens about the minor was inadequate, but no evidence indicates that any of the others were the parents, adult relatives, or legal guardians of the minor. See United States v. Lucas, 101 F.4th 1158, 1162 (9th Cir. 2024) (en banc) (due process is satisfied when the district court’s guidelines factfinding is supported by a preponderance of the evidence). 2. The district court did not abuse its discretion by applying the two-point enhancement for reckless creation of a substantial risk of death or serious bodily in