NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 23 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 19-50100 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:14-cr-01656-BEN-1 v. MEMORANDUM* ANGEL SALINAS-MANDUJANO, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 19, 2019** Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Angel Salinas-Mandujano appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 75-month sentence and the 5-year term of supervised release imposed on remand following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Salinas-Mandujano contends that the district court erred by denying his request for a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. We review the district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines de novo, and its application of the Guidelines to the facts for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Gasca-Ruiz, 852 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). The government’s arguments, which the district court adopted, support the court’s conclusion that Salinas- Mandujano did not show that, as compared to all possible co-participants in the offense, he was not “substantially less culpable than the average participant.” See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A). Though the district court did not explicitly discuss each of the Guideline factors, see U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C), it was not required to do so, particularly given that this was Salinas-Mandujano’s third sentencing hearing before the same judge and each hearing primarily concerned the minor role adjustment. See United States v. Diaz, 884 F.3d 911, 914-15 (9th Cir. 2018). The court did not abuse its discretion in denying the adjustment. See United States v. Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d 519, 523 (9th Cir. 2016) (district court may deny minor role reduction even if some factors weigh in favor of granting it).

Salinas-Mandujano next contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain the term of supervised release adequately. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.

2 19-50100 2010), and conclude that there is none. The record as a whole reflects the district court’s reasons for imposing the above-Guidelines term of supervised release. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (adequate explanation may be inferred from the record as a whole).

AFFIRMED.

3 19-50100