
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose de Jesus Marrujo MEZA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-10192.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 29, 2010.
    Richard Madril, Esquire, The Law Office of Richard Madril, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. 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

Jose de Jesus Marrujo Meza appeals from the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A)(iii); importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a) and 960(b)(1)(H); possession with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(l)(A)(i); and importation of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a) and 960(b)(1)(A). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Meza contends that the district court erred by denying 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 the adjustment for a minimal or minor participant. 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”).

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