MEMORANDUM **

Erik Altamirano appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 18-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Altamirano contends that the district court applied the wrong legal standard and considered improper factors when determining whether he was entitled to a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.2(b). We review the district court’s interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo. See United States v. Hurtado, 760 F.3d 1065, 1068 (9th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 1467, 191 L.Ed.2d 412 (2015). The district court considered the parties’ arguments and concluded that the record did not support a finding that Alta-mirano was entitled to a minor role adjustment. The court’s rejection of the adjustment was consistent with the guideline and our precedent. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. *876 n.3(A) (adjustment available only if defendant is “substantially less culpable than the average participant”); United States v. Rosas, 615 F.3d 1058, 1067 (9th Cir. 2010) (defendant’s burden to establish his entitlement to the adjustment). Finally, the district court was not required to consider Altamirano’s lack of knowledge of the smuggling enterprise when determining whether Altamirano played a minor role in the offense. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.4 (lack of knowledge relevant to minimal participant adjustment).

AFFIRMED.