
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin Yanez VERDUGO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-50545.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 17, 2013.
    
    Filed Dec. 30, 2013.
    Steve Miller, Assistant U.S., Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Walter K. Pyle, Berkeley, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Martin Yanez Verdugo appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 68-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Yanez Verdugo contends that the district court erred by denying his request for a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 8B1.2(b), because it presumed drug couriers are ineligible for a minor role adjustment, improperly considered government evidence in other cases, and improperly considered premeditation. We review de novo the district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines, for abuse of discretion the district court’s application of the Guidelines to the facts of the case, and for clear error its factual determination that a defendant is not a minor participant. United States v. Rodriguez-Castro, 641 F.3d 1189, 1192 (9th Cir.2011). We need not decide whether the district court erred because any error was harmless in light of the district court’s determination, supported by the record, that Yanez Verdugo failed to prove he was substantially less culpable than the average participant in the offense. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) & cmt. n. 3(A); see also Rodriguez-Castro, 641 F.3d at 1193 (district court did not err in declining to apply minor role adjustment where defendant, a courier, registered car in his name, created a “crossing record,” and transported a substantial amount of narcotics).

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