
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Muanuel COTA-CHAVEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-50407.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 25, 2015.
    
    Filed Sept. 1, 2015.
    Randy K. Jones, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    James Fife, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, 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

Juan Muanuel Cota-Chavez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 48-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of methamphetamine and heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Cota-Chavez contends that the district court erred when it denied his request for a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) by (i) failing to compare his culpability to that of others involved in the offense, (ii) failing to consider his limited knowledge about the smuggling operation, and (iii) relying on improper factors. We review de novo the district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines and for clear error its factual determination that a defendant is not a minor participant. See United States v. Rodriguez-Castro, 641 F.3d 1189, 1192 (9th Cir.2011). The record reflects that the district court understood and applied the correct legal standard, properly considered the totality of the circumstances, and did not rely on improper factors in denying the adjustment. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n. 3(A), (C); United States v. Hurtado, 760 F.3d 1065, 1068-69 (9th Cir.2014), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 1467, 191 L.Ed.2d 412 (2015). The record further supports the court’s conclusion that Cota-Chavez failed to carry his burden of establishing that he was entitled to the adjustment. See Rodriguez-Castro, 641 F.3d at 1193.

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