
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arturo Alejandro CASTILLO-GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-10115.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.
    
    Filed Jan. 24, 2011.
    Christina Marie Cabanillas, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Ramiro Flores, Jr., Flores & Haywood, PLLC, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Arturo Alejandro Castillo-Gonzalez appeals from the 66-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960(a)(1) and (b)(l)(B)(ii), and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(l)(A)(ii)(II). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Castillo-Gonzalez contends that the district court erred by denying his request for the mitigating role adjustment at U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. Under the facts of this case, the district court did not clearly err by denying an adjustment for minimal or minor role. See United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1282 (9th Cir.2006) (describing standard); see also United States v. Lui, 941 F.2d 844, 849 (9th Cir.1991) (stating that a defendant “may be a courier without being either a minimal or a minor participant,” and that “possession of a substantial amount of narcotics is grounds for refusing to grant a sentence reduction”).

Castillo-Gonzalez further contends that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. Considering the totality of the circumstances, Castillo-Gonzalez’s below-Guidelines sentence was substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

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