MEMORANDUM **

Selena Perez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 100-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Perez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to address her mitigating arguments and by failing to appreciate its discretion to vary from the Guidelines on policy grounds under Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007). Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Hammons, 558 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir. 2009), we conclude that the district court did not err. The record reflects that the district court considered Perez’s mitigating arguments and departed downward in response. Moreover, the record shows that the district court understood its discretion to vary from the Guidelines on policy grounds but chose not to exercise that discretion. See United States v. Henderson, 649 F.3d 955, 964 (9th Cir. 2011).

AFFIRMED.