
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Susan CHAVEZ-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-10055.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 9, 2011.
    
    Filed Oct. 16, 2012.
    Mark Alexander Inciong, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
    Donna M. Gray, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Susan Chavez-Ramirez appeals from the 158-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a substance containing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § § 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846; and possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a substance containing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Chavez-Ramirez contends that in granting a downward departure under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e), the district court could have considered factors unrelated to her substantial assistance. This contention is foreclosed by United States v. Jackson, 577 F.3d 1032, 1036 (9th Cir.2009). Contrary to Chavez-Ramirez’s argument, Pepper v. United States, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1229, 179 L.Ed.2d 196 (2011), does not permit us to disregard our precedent. See United States v. Gonzalez-Zotelo, 556 F.3d 736, 740 (9th Cir.2009).

Chavez-Ramirez also contends that the district court erred when it used the Guidelines range as the starting point for the departure. Even if the district court so erred, Chavez-Ramirez has not established a reasonable probability that she would have received a different sentence had the district court instead used the mandatory minimum sentence as the starting point. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir.2008).

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