
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jonathan SALAS-ALVAREZ, Defendant-Appellant,
    No. 15-50500
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted January 18, 2017 
    
    Filed January 23, 2017
    Susan Leah Park, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Joseph M. McMullen, Esquire, Law Offices of Joseph M. McMullen, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jonathan Salas-Alvarez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 70-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Salas-Alvarez contends that the district court erred by denying him a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 on the basis of an incorrect presumption that the Guidelines preclude a minor role adjustment for drug couriers involved in importing large quantities of methamphetamine. We review the district court’s interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo. See United States v. Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d 519, 522 (9th Cir. 2016). The record does not support Salas-Alvarez’s argument that the district court applied a categorical rule that no courier of methamphetamine over a certain quantity may qualify for a minor role adjustment. Rather, the record demonstrates that the district court properly evaluated Salas-Alvarez’s case under the factors enumerated in the commentary to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, comparing him to the other known participants in the drug-trafficking activity and considering the totality of circumstances. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(c); Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d at 522-23.

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