22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T52e,MEMORANDUM Jose de Jesus Marrujo Meza appeals from the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A)(iii); importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 (a) and 960(b)(1)(H); possession with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1) and 841(b)(l)(A)(i); and importation of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 (a) and 960(b)(1)(A). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Meza contends that the district court erred by denying the mitigating role adjustment at U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. Under the facts of this case, the district court did not clearly err by denying the adjustment for a minimal or minor participant. See United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1282 (9th Cir.2006) (describing standard); see also United States v. Lui, 941 F.2d 844, 849 (9th Cir.1991) (stating that a defendant “may be a courier without being either a minimal or a minor participant,” and that “possession of a substantial amount of narcotics is grounds for refusing to grant a sentence reduction”). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T55b,

MEMORANDUM

Jose de Jesus Marrujo Meza appeals from the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A)(iii); importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 (a) and 960(b)(1)(H); possession with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1) and 841(b)(l)(A)(i); and importation of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 (a) and 960(b)(1)(A). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Meza contends that the district court erred by denying the mitigating role adjustment at U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. Under the facts of this case, the district court did not clearly err by denying the adjustment for a minimal or minor participant. See United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1282 (9th Cir.2006) (describing standard); see also United States v. Lui, 941 F.2d 844, 849 (9th Cir.1991) (stating that a defendant “may be a courier without being either a minimal or a minor participant,” and that “possession of a substantial amount of narcotics is grounds for refusing to grant a sentence reduction”).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.