
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Scott JAMES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-10466.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 18, 2013.
    
    Filed June 21, 2013.
    Paul Andrew Hemesath, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USSAC-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.
    Michael Petrik, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDCA-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Scott James appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 80-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

James contends that the district court violated his due process rights by relying on hearsay evidence that lacked sufficient indicia of reliability to support an upward adjustment for obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 and an upward variance. See United States v. Petty, 982 F.2d 1365, 1369 (9th Cir.1993), amended by 992 F.2d 1015 (9th Cir.1995) (“Due process requires that some minimal indicia of reliability accompany a hearsay statement.”). We review the district court’s determination of reliability for abuse of discretion. See id. The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the testimony of a special agent relaying the statements of disinterested university officials was sufficiently reliable.

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