
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adriana BONILLA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-50554.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 17, 2013.
    
    Filed Jan. 3, 2014.
    Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Stephen M. Tokarz, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    James Fife, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Adriana Bonilla appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 57-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for importation of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Bonilla contends that the district court erred by denying her request for a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). The record reflects that the court properly compared Bonilla’s conduct to that of an average participant in determining whether to grant the adjustment. See United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1283 (9th Cir.2006). Because Bonilla failed to establish that she was substantially less culpable than the average participant, the district court did not clearly err by denying the adjustment. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n. 3(A); United States v. Rodríguez-Castro, 641 F.3d 1189, 1193 (9th Cir.2011).

Bonilla next contends that her sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Bonilla’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The sentence 13 months below the bottom of the advisory Guidelines range is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See id.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
     