
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ivan Eduardo HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-50257
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 8, 2017 
    
    Filed May 11, 2017
    Alicia Phillip Williams, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, Colin M. McDonald, Assistant U.S. Attorney, US Department of Justice, Southern District of California, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    
      Nicholas De Pento, Law Office of Nicholas De Pento, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ivan Eduardo Hernandez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 71-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea convictions for importation of methamphetamine and heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Hernandez contends that the district court’s minor role analysis was flawed because the court refused to compare him to unknown participants in the drug trafficking organization. Assuming without deciding that the court was required to compare Hernandez to unidentified co-participants, we find no reversible error. The record reflects that, even if the court had considered a broader network of participants, it would not have concluded that Hernandez was “substantially less culpable” than the average participant in light of Hernandez’s repeated crossings and the amount of drugs and money involved. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A), (C).

The government correctly concedes that the written judgment erroneously imposes a 72-month sentence, rather than the 71-month sentence that the district court orally pronounced. Therefore, we vacate the judgment and remand so the district court can make the written judgment consistent with the unambiguous oral pronouncement of the sentence. See United States v. Hernandez, 795 F.3d 1159, 1169 (9th Cir. 2015).

AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct the judgment. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     