MEMORANDUM **

Cornelio Rojas Santiago appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 121-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to import cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960, and 963; and aiding and abetting the importation of cocaine, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960, and 963. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Rojas Santiago contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to apply the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and to address his mitigation arguments. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The record reflects that the district court properly considered the section 3553(a) factors and adequately addressed Rojas-Santiago’s arguments. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Rojas Santiago also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Rojas Santiago’s sentence. *661 See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The low-end Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) factors and the totality of the cir-cmpstances, including the 120-month mandatory-minimum sentence for this crime and Rojas Santiago’s role in the drug-trafficking operation. See id.

AFFIRMED.