
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raymundo Octavio RODRIGUEZ-AGUIRRE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-50492.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Oct. 12, 2010.
    Christopher Seth Askins, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Linda J. Lopez, Esquire, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, 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

Raymundo Octavio Rodriguez-Aguirre appeals the 70-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of marijuana, in violation 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Rodriguez-Aguirre contends the district court erred by denying him a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). We conclude that the district court did not clearly err by ruling that Rodriguez-Aguirre failed to carry his burden of proving that he was substantially less culpable than the average participant. See United States v. Awad, 371 F.3d 583, 591 (9th Cir.2004); United States v. Hursh, 217 F.3d 761, 770 (9th Cir.2000).

Rodriguez-Aguirre contends the district court failed to consider the role of others in the offense. The record reveals that the district court properly compared Rodriguez-Aguirre to the average participant in the case. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt n.3(A); Awad, 371 F.3d at 591.

Rodriguez-Aguirre also contends that the district court was required to point to articulate facts showing managerial culpability. That contention lacks merit. See Awad, 371 F.3d at 591 (“The defendant bears the burden of proving that he is entitled to a downward adjustment based on his role in the offense.”).

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