
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Javier PEREZ-SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-50091
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted February 14, 2017 
    
    Filed February 21, 2017
    Karla Davis, Helen H. Hong, Daniel Earl Zipp, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Brian Paul Funk, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of Brian P. Funk, San Diego CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Juan Javier Perez-Sanchez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 72-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.

Perez-Sanchez contends that the district court applied the wrong legal standard to his request for a minor role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, and erred in denying the reduction. We review the district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines de novo, and its factual finding that a defendant was not a minor participant for clear error. See United States v. Hurtado, 760 F.3d 1065, 1068 (9th Cir. 2014). Contrary to Perez-Sanchez’s claim, the district court properly compared Perez-Sanchez to his co-participants in the offense, and considered the factors enumerated in the Guideline and the totality of the circumstances, to determine whether Perez-Sanchez was “substantially less culpable than the average participant,” See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A), (C) (2015); United States v. Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d 519, 523 (9th Cir. 2016). Moreover, in light of the circumstances of the offense, the district court did not clearly err in concluding that Perez-Sanchez was not a minor participant. See Hurtado, 760 F.3d at 1069.

Furthermore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Perez-Sanchez to a below-Guidelines term. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the large amount of drugs that Perez-Sanchez imported. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

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