of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Guzman contends the district court erred by denying his request for a minor role adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). Guzman failed to carry his burden of proving that he is entitled to such an adjustment. See United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1282-83 (9th Cir.2006). Among other things, Guzman knowingly transported a substantial amount of narcotics, see United States v. Hursh, 217 F.3d 761, 770 (9th Cir.2000), and planned on accepting money in return, see United States v. Davis, 36 F.3d 1424, 1437 (9th Cir.1994). Therefore, the district court did not clearly err by declining to apply a minor role adjustment. See Cantrell, 433 F.3d at 1283-84 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Howard, 894 F.2d 1085, 1091
holding that district courts decision regarding defendants minor role status was not clearly erroneous holding role enhancement was not clearly erroneous where district court made credibility decision to believe codefendants statements holding that the trial courts conclusion regarding an easement of necessity was clearly erroneous holding that the district courts finding of no discrimination was not clearly erroneous because the finding was supported by the record holding that district courts findings were not clearly erroneous where there was  sufficient evidence  that the defendants waiver of his rights was knowing and intelligent