
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricardo FERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-50139.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 10, 2015.
    
    Decided March 18, 2015.
    Carlos Arguello, II, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Roseline Dergregorian-Feral, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ricardo Fernandez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 96-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Fernandez challenges the district court’s denial of a minor-role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, claiming that the district court incorrectly interpreted and applied the Guideline in denying the reduction. We review the district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines de novo, its application of the Guidelines to the facts of the case for abuse of discretion, and its finding that a defendant is not a minor participant for clear error. See United States v. Rodriguez-Castro, 641 F.3d 1189, 1192 (9th Cir.2011). The record reflects that the district court understood the legal standard, applied it correctly, and properly considered the totality of the circumstances, when it denied the adjustment. See United States v. Hurtado, 760 F.3d 1065, 1068-69 (9th Cir.2014). Moreover, because Fernandez was the registered owner and sole occupant of a vehicle in which a substantial amount of drugs was discovered, and admitted that he expected to be paid $1,500 for smuggling the drugs, the district court did not clearly err in holding that he was not a minor participant. See id.

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