
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Aj WILLIANDER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-10146
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September 27, 2016 
    
    Filed October 04, 2016
    Thomas J. Brady, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ—Office of the US Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Walter Julio Rodby, Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Walter J. Rodby, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R, App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

AJ Williander appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to interfere with commerce by bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; and bank robbery by use of a dangerous weapon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), (d), and 2. We haVe jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Williander contends that the district court erred by relying on unverified information and improper factors in denying his request for a mitigating role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. We disagree. The record reflects that the district court considered only proper factors and relied upon the presentence report’s unchallenged account of the facts underlying the robbery. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C) (2015); United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1085 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (a “district court may rely on undisputed statements in the PSR at sentencing”). Moreover, the district court did not clearly err in denying an adjustment because Wil-liander knowingly transported his codefen-dants to and from the robbery in exchange for a portion of its proceeds. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C) (2015); United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1282-83 (9th Cir. 2006).

Williander also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 662 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) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Williander’s criminal history and the nature of the offense. 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.
     