
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio GASTELUM-JUAREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 17-50097
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 18, 2017 
    
    Filed December 22, 2017
    Francis Anthony DiGiacco, Ajay Krish-namurthy, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Michael L. Crowley, Attorney, Crowley Law Group, APC, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Antonio Gastelum-Juarez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 70-month sentence imposed upon remand following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Gastelum-Juarez contends that the district court erred by denying his request for a minor role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. We review the district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines de novo, and its application of the Guidelines to the facts of the case for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Gasca-Ruiz, 852 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc).

Contrary to Gastelum-Juarez’s claim, the district court considered the five factors under the amended Guideline. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (the district court need not “tick off’ the factors to show that it has considered them). In light of the totality of the circumstances, including Gastelum-Juarez’s actions leading up to the offense, the quantity of methamphetamine at issue, and his significant compensation, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the reduction. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C); Gasca-Ruiz, 852 F.3d at 1170. That Gastelum-Juarez may have been less culpable than the organizer of the smuggling enterprise did not show that he was entitled to the adjustment. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A) (adjustment applies to a defendant who is substantially less culpable than the “average” participant in the offense).

We grant Gastelum-Juarez’s request to take judicial notice.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     