MEMORANDUM***

The district court did not err when it denied Defendant Ashraf Hamed’s (“Hamed”) request for a two-point offense level reduction pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2Dl.l(b)(6). Section 2Dl.l(b)(6) cannot be used to reduce a sentence properly calculated under § 2D1.11. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.11(c)(l) (2000); United States v. Brownstein, 79 F.3d 121, 123 (9th Cir. 1996); see also U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D.1.11 cmt. statutory provisions, and App. A at 453 (2000).

The district court also did not err when it denied Defendant Abdelrahim Nassar’s (“Nassar”) request for an offense level reduction pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.2. The undisputed facts in the presentence report reflect that Nassar not only participated in negotiations but also exercised decision-making authority. See United States v. Duran, 189 F.3d 1071, 1088-89 (9th Cir. 1999); United States v. Klimavicius-Viloria, 144 F.3d 1249, 1266 (9th Cir. 1998). The district court resolved the disputed issue of whether Nassar’s role was minor and definitively ruled that Nassar “did not have a minor role in this.” See United States v. Flores-Payon, 942 F.2d 556, 558, 561 (9th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, we affirm Hamed’s and Nassar’s convictions and sentences.

AFFIRMED.