
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ines CELIS-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-50526
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 11, 2017 
    
    Filed April 20, 2017
    Nicole Ries Fox, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Benjamin J. Cheeks, Attorney, Law Offices of Benjamin J. Cheeks, A.P.C., S,an Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: GOULD, 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

Ines Celis-Lopez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 72-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of heroin and methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

Celis-Lopez contends that the district court erred by denying his request for a minor role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). He argues that the court failed to conduct the requisite comparative culpability analysis and erred in finding that he was not a minor participant. We review the district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines de novo, and its factual finding that a defendant was not a minor participant for clear error. See United States v. Hurtado, 760 F.3d 1065, 1068 (9th Cir. 2014). Contrary to Celis-Lopez’s argument, the court properly compared his culpability to that of an average participant in his offense. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A). It specifically compared Celis-Lopez to the one co-participant to whom Celis-Lopez asked to be compared, and also considered Celis-Lopez’s role in the overall drug smuggling scheme. See United States v. Rojas-Millan, 234 F.3d 464, 473-74 (9th Cir. 2000). Furthermore, although the court acknowledged that some of the facts supported a minor role adjustment in this case, it did not clearly err in finding, based on the totality of the circumstances, that Celis-Lopez’s role in the offense was not minor. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C); United States v. Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d 519, 523 (9th Cir. 2016).

Celis-Lopez also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his mitigating circumstances. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the large amount of drugs that Celis-Lopez imported. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     