
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Rafael VEA-MARTINEZ, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 10-10049.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 14, 2010.
    
    Filed Jan. 5, 2011.
    Jonathan Baghdassarian Granoff, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Vincent Lawrence Lacsamana, Esquire, Vincent L. Lacsamana PC, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rafael Vea-Martinez appeals from the 97-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 (b)(1)(A)(viii), and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(ii)(II). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Vea-Martinez contends the district court erred by applying the wrong standard when evaluating whether he should receive a minor role adjustment under the Sentencing Guidelines. He maintains that as a result of this error, the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. The record reflects that the district court applied the correct standard in denying the adjustment, and that it did not clearly err by determining that Vea-Martinez did not sustain his burden of showing that he was substantially less culpable than his co-participants. See United States v. Cantrell, 483 F.3d 1269, 1282-84 (9th Cir.2006). The record further indicates that, under the totality of the circumstances, Vea-Martinez’s below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

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