
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Enriqueta NAVARRETE-ZAVALA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-50183
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted August 10, 2017 Pasadena, California
    Filed November 28, 2017
    Jonathan I. Shapiro, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Timothy Francis Salel, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Daniel Earl Zipp, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Gary Paul Burcham, Burcham & Zug-man, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: REINHARDT, KOZINSKI, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

1. The district court increased Navar-rete-Zavala’s sentence under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) for maintaining a stash house. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12), cmt. n.17 (2015). Under the circumstances of this case, the district court did not err by imposing this enhancement.

2. Even if the district court mistakenly applied the enhancement from § 2S1.1(b)(2)(B) as a specific offense characteristic while calculating Navarrete-Zavala’s sentence under the drug distribution guideline § 2D1.1, any error was harmless. See United States v. Munoz-Camarena, 631 F.3d 1028, 1030-31 (9th Cir. 2011); United States v. Ali, 620 F.3d 1062, 1074 (9th Cir. 2010). Had the district court calculated Navarrete-Zavala’s Guidelines range in the manner she urges, it would have resulted in the same offense level used to calculate the Guidelines range. See U.S.S.G. § 3D1.3(b).

3. On the facts of this case, the district court abused its discretion by denying Na-varrete-Zavala’s request to seal the transcripts from her sentencing hearings and the parties’ joint request to seal the government’s sentencing memorandum. See United States v. Doe, 870 F.3d 991, 994 (9th Cir. 2017).

Navarrete-Zavala’s sentence is AFFIRMED. The case is REMANDED for the district court to seal the government’s sentencing memorandum and the transcripts from Navarrete-Zavala’s sentencing hearings. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     