
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Teodoro RIVERA-GUEVARA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-50510
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 14, 2016 
    
    Filed December 22, 2016
    Charlotte E. Kaiser, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee
    Ricardo M. Gonzalez, Law Office of Ricardo Gonzalez, 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

Teodoro Rivera-Guevara appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 75-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.

Rivera-Guevara contends that the district court erred by denying his request for a minor role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). We review the 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). The district court properly compared Rivera-Guevara’s culpability to that of an average participant in his offense. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A); United States v. Rojas-Millan, 234 F.3d 464, 473-74 (9th Cir. 2000). Moreover, the district court properly considered Rivera-Guevara’s arguments and the factors listed in the- Guidelines’ revised commentary in finding that Rivera-Guevara’s role in the offense was not minor, based on the totality of the circumstances. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C). That finding was not clearly erroneous in light of Rivera-Guevara’s importing a substantial quantity of methamphetamine into this country using his own vehicle, and his work as a drug courier on two previous occasions. See United States v. Rodriguez-Castro, 641 F.3d 1189, 1192-93 (9th Cir. 2011).

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