
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony Christopher EBBE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-50043.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 17, 2015.
    
    Filed Feb. 24, 2015.
    Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Cor-etta Catlin, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Kurt David Hermansen, Esquire, Law Ofc of Kurt David Hermansen, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Anthony Christopher Ebbe appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 63-month sentence imposed following his gmlty-plea conviction for importation of 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.

Ebbe 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 Guidelines 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). Contrary to Ebbe’s suggestion, the Guidelines do not mandate a minor role reduction for couriers. See id. at ■1193. Rather, a downward adjustment may be denied to a courier defendant when an additional factor shows that he did not play a minor role. See id. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the reduction to Ebbe, who admitted to smuggling drugs for the drug trafficking organization on at least 30 occasions and who was the registered owner and sole occupant of the car in which a substantial amount of drugs were discovered. See id.

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