
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raymond Douglas APPELWICK, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-50421
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 14, 2016 
    
    Filed December 20, 2016
    Matthew Sutton, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Michael J. Heyman, Helen H. Hong, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Johanna S. Schiavoni, Attorney, Law Office of Johanna S. Schiavoni, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Raymond Douglas Appelwick appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 96-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea convictions for conspiracy to import methamphetamine and importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960, and 963'. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Appelwick contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court overstated the seriousness of his offense, failed to consider mitigating evidence, and imposed' a sentence greater than necessary. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Appel-wick’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The court varied downward 72 months in recognition of Ap-pelwick’s mitigating circumstances. The below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the amount of methamphetamine Appelwick attempted to transport into the United States, his prior arrest for delivering methamphetamine to a “stash house,” and his procurement of motorcycle batteries used to bring drugs into the country. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51,128 S.Ct. 586.

We decline to reach Appelwick’s claim, raised for the first time in his reply brief, that he is entitled to a minor role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. See United States v. Mejia-Pimental, 477 F.3d 1100, 1105 n.9 (9th Cir. 2007). Contrary to Appel-wick’s contention, neither the amendment to the minor role Guideline, which became effective before the opening brief was filed, nor this court’s holding that the amendment is retroactive, constitutes good cause for Appelwick’s failure to raise the claim earlier.

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