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:T53c,MEMORANDUM ** Jesus Antonio Borboa-Bustamante appeals from the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute approximately 292 kilograms of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1), (b)(l)(B)(vii), and § 846, and possession with intent to distribute approximately 292 kilograms of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1), (b)(1)(B). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Borboa-Bustamante contends that the district court erred when it denied his request for a minor role adjustment, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. The district court did not abuse its discretion, given Borboa-Bustamante’s conduct, the circumstances of his arrest, and the amount he was paid for his services. See United States v. Davis, 36 F.3d 1424, 1437 (9th Cir.1994). Borboa-Bustamante also contends that the district court treated the Sentencing Guidelines range as presumptively reasonable, provided an inadequate 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) analysis, and failed to consider his departure arguments. The district court did not procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 994-96 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T55c,

MEMORANDUM **

Jesus Antonio Borboa-Bustamante appeals from the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute approximately 292 kilograms of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1), (b)(l)(B)(vii), and § 846, and possession with intent to distribute approximately 292 kilograms of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1), (b)(1)(B). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Borboa-Bustamante contends that the district court erred when it denied his request for a minor role adjustment, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. The district court did not abuse its discretion, given Borboa-Bustamante’s conduct, the circumstances of his arrest, and the amount he was paid for his services. See United States v. Davis, 36 F.3d 1424, 1437 (9th Cir.1994).

Borboa-Bustamante also contends that the district court treated the Sentencing Guidelines range as presumptively reasonable, provided an inadequate 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) analysis, and failed to consider his departure arguments. The district court did not procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 994-96 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.

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