Walter Lippmann-Avilez challenges the within-guidelines sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). He argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court did not adjust his offense level downward pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. He also argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable.

To the extent that Lippmann-Avilez is challenging the district court’s refusal to downwardly depart from the recommended guidelines range, we do not have jurisdiction to review that decision. See United States v. Barrera-Saucedo, 385 F.3d 533, 535 (5th Cir. 2004). Moreover, although Lippmann-Avilez contends that he preserved his challenge to the lack of a § 3B1.2 minor role adjustment in his “Motion for Downward Departure,” that argument was expressly waived during his *505 sentencing hearing. See United States v. Arviso-Mata, 442 F.3d 382, 384 (5th Cir. 2006). His argument fails, however, even under the plain error standard of review as we have previously rejected the argument that a § 3B1.2 adjustment is warranted if the defendant was a courier who was forced into transporting drugs. See United States v. Silvar-De Hoyos, 702 F.3d 843, 846-47 (5th Cir. 2012). Further, because Lippmann-Avilez’s sentence was based solely upon the amount of heroin that he possessed and intended to distribute in the United States, § 3B1.2 does not require a reduction to the base offense level even though his activity in a larger conspiracy may have been minor. See United States v. Atando, 60 F.3d 196, 198-99 (5th Cir. 1995). Lippmann-Avilez has shown no error, plain or otherwise, in the calculation of his guidelines range.

With regard to substantive reasonableness, Lippmann-Avilez contends that the district court failed to adequately consider the nature and circumstances of the offense, his history and characteristics, and a sentence below the recommended guidelines range. Lippmann-Avilez has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to his within-guidelines sentence. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.