
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin Adolfo PALAFOX-CARDENAS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-10133.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
    
    Filed Sept. 24, 2012.
    Jonell Lee Lucca, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Lynn T. Hamilton, Esquire, Hamilton Law Office, PC, Mesa, AZ, for Defendant Appellant.
    Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, 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 Adolfo Palafox-Cardenas appeals from the 144-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(l)(A)(viii), and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Palafox-Cardenas contends that the district court applied the wrong standard in considering his request for a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.2(b), and clearly erred in denying the adjustment. The record belies the contention that the court applied the wrong legal standard in considering the adjustment. Because Palafox-Cardenas failed to prove that he was “substantially less culpable than the average participant” in the conspiracy, the court did not err in denying the adjustment. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n. 3(A); United States v. Rodriguez-Castro, 641 F.3d 1189, 1193 (9th Cir.2011).

Palafox-Cardenas also contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and by failing to explain adequately the sentence imposed in light of his mitigating arguments. The district court expressly considered the section 3553(a) factors and adequately explained the sentence.

Finally, Palafox-Cardenas contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. Under the totality of the circumstances and the section 3553(a) sentencing factors, the sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

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