one-level downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3El.l(b). The district court did not clearly err by declining to grant the reduction. See United States v. Espinoza-Cano, 456 F.3d 1126, 1138 (9th Cir.2006). Tapia also contends that the district court erred by foreclosing its consideration of downward departures based on the fact that she did not plead guilty pursuant to a plea agreement. We conclude that the district court did not procedurally err, and that the sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 586, 596-97, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); cf. United States v. Reina-Rodriguez, 468 F.3d 1147, 1158-59 (9th Cir.2006), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Grisel, 488 F.3d 844, 851 n. 5 (9th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. ** This disposition is not
holding circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction to accept a guilty plea where defendant was not indicted for the charge to which he pled guilty but signed a sentencing sheet which established defendant was notified of the charge to which he pled guilty holding that defendant was entitled to withdraw guilty plea upon habeas corpus proceedings where he pled guilty in exchange for an illegal sentence holding that the district courts consideration of whether the defendant pled guilty pursuant to a plea agree ment did not render the sentence unreasonable holding that a defendant must demonstrate that he would not have pled guilty but for the error holding that the defendants guilty plea was valid where the district court carefully questioned the defendant about whether he understood the consequences of his guilty plea