
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Candelario GONZALEZ-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-50250.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 22, 2015.
    
    Filed June 25, 2015.
    Janet Cabral, Assistant U.S., Peter Ko, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Roxana Sandoval, Vincent James Brun-kow, Federal Defenders of San Diego, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Candelario Gonzalez-Garcia appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 78-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have-jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Gonzalez-Garcia contends that the district court legally erred when it denied his request for a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b).. He argues that the court erred by (i) comparing him to the hypothetical average importer of narcotics, rather than to other likely participants in the instant offense; (ii) limiting its analysis to the offense of conviction, rather than the larger criminal scheme; and (iii) requiring clear and convincing evidence that he was entitled to the adjustment. We review the district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines de novo. See United States v. Hurtado, 760 F.3d 1065, 1068 (9th Cir.2014), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 1467, 191 L.Ed.2d 412 (2015). Any' error in this case was harmless. The court ultimately denied the adjustment based on proper considerations. See id. at 1069 (affirming denial of minor role where appellant was paid to smuggle a significant amount of drugs across the border in a truck that was registered in his name). Moreover, Gonzalez-Garcia’s sentence is within the Guidelines range that would have applied had the district court determined that he was eligible for the minor role adjustment. See United States v. Munoz-Camarena, 631 F.3d 1028, 1030 & n. 5 (9th Cir.2011) (per curiam).

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