
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ismelda SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 17-50051
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 18, 2017 
    
    Filed December 22, 2017
    Benjamin Holley, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Ryan A. Sausedo, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee
    Benjamin J. Cheeks, Attorney, Law Offices of Benjamin J. Cheeks, A.P.C., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed, R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ismelda Sanchez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 68-month sentence imposed upon remand following her guilty-plea conviction for importation of heroin and methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Sanchez contends that the district court erred by denying her request for a minor role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. We review the district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines de novo, and its application of the Guidelines to the facts of the case for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Gasca-Ruiz, 852 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc).

Sanchez argues that the district court failed to compare her to two of her co-participants in the offense, and incorrectly concluded that she was not entitled to a minor role adjustment under the amended Guideline. The record reflects that the court compared Sanchez to all of the co-participants she identified, and found that Sanchez was not “substantially less culpable than the average participant.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A). In light of the totality of the circumstances, including Sanchez’s prior drug smuggling activity, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the reduction. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C); Gasca-Ruiz, 852 F.3d at 1170.

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