Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John MOHAMMADI, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-12-13
Citations: 405 F. App'x 249
Docket Number: No. 10-30079
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John MOHAMMADI, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, RYMER, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 405
Pages: 249–250

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John MOHAMMADI, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-30079.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 6, 2010.
Filed Dec. 13, 2010.
Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Catherine Lynskey Gris-ham, Assistant U.S. Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Dennis Carroll, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: GOODWIN, RYMER, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
John Mohammadi appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for bulk cash smuggling, in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5332 and 18 U.S.C. § 2. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Mohammadi contends that the district court procedurally erred by denying his request for a two-level minor role adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. The district court did not clearly err by denying Mohammadi's request for a downward adjustment. See United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1283-84 (9th Cir.2006); see also United States v. Hursh, 217 F.3d 761, 770 (9th Cir.2000) (the fact that a defendant acted as a courier does not mean his role was minor).
Mohammadi also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his individual circumstances. The record reflects that the district court did not procedurally err, and the sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); see also United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.