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:T42f,MEMORANDUM Juan Enrique Jimenez appeals from the 13-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Jimenez contends that the district court clearly erred at sentencing by denying a minor-role adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. He further contends that the district court improperly based its decision on factors unrelated to Jimenez’s level of participation in the offense. The record reflects that the district court considered appropriate factors when determining whether Jimenez met his burden of proving that he was a minor participant in the offense, and that it did not clearly err by concluding that Jimenez had not met his burden. See United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1282-83 (9th Cir.2006); United States v. Pena-Gutieirez, 222 F.3d 1080, 1091-92 (9th Cir.2000). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T45c,

MEMORANDUM

Juan Enrique Jimenez appeals from the 13-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Jimenez contends that the district court clearly erred at sentencing by denying a minor-role adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. He further contends that the district court improperly based its decision on factors unrelated to Jimenez’s level of participation in the offense. The record reflects that the district court considered appropriate factors when determining whether Jimenez met his burden of proving that he was a minor participant in the offense, and that it did not clearly err by concluding that Jimenez had not met his burden. See United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1282-83 (9th Cir.2006); United States v. Pena-Gutieirez, 222 F.3d 1080, 1091-92 (9th Cir.2000).

AFFIRMED.

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