
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hugo DOMINGUEZ-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-50240.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed March 9, 2010.
    Randy K. Jones, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Antonio Yoon, Law Offices of Antonio F. Yoon, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Hugo Dominguez-Rodriguez appeals from the 108-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction of importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Dominguez-Rodriguez contends that the district court erred by determining that the Government’s substantial assistance motion was the sole permissible basis for a variance or departure below the mandatory minimum. He asserts that the district court was not bound by the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) because United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), rendered the Sentencing Guidelines advisory. These contentions are foreclosed. See United States v. Jackson, 577 F.3d 1032, 1035-36 n. 1 (9th Cir.2009); see also United States v. Auld, 321 F.3d 861, 867 (9th Cir.2003).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     