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:T49c,MEMORANDUM Eric Bautista appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea convictions 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. Bautista contends that the district court erred by failing to apply the revised commentary when considering his request for a minor role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). We review the district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines de novo. See United States v. Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d 519, 522 (9th Cir. 2016). The record reflects that Bautista’s counsel discussed the five factors enumerated in the commentary during the sentencing hearing and, contrary to Bautista’s suggestion, the district court was not required to “tick off’ these factors, see United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc), nor was it required to weigh the factors in a particular manner, see Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d at 523 . AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T4c9,

MEMORANDUM

Eric Bautista appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea convictions 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.

Bautista contends that the district court erred by failing to apply the revised commentary when considering his request for a minor role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). We review the district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines de novo. See United States v. Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d 519, 522 (9th Cir. 2016). The record reflects that Bautista’s counsel discussed the five factors enumerated in the commentary during the sentencing hearing and, contrary to Bautista’s suggestion, the district court was not required to “tick off’ these factors, see United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc), nor was it required to weigh the factors in a particular manner, see Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d at 523 .

AFFIRMED.

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