court properly calculates the guidelines range and considers the sentencing factors contained in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). United States v. Marcial-Santiago, 447 F.3d 715, 717 (9th Cir.2006). Here, the district court properly calculated the guidelines range because, contrary to Serrano’s contention, the court did not clearly err in refusing to make a two-level “minor participant” adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). See United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269 (9th Cir.2006) (“[A] minimal or minor participant adjustment under § 3B1.2 is available only if the defendant was ‘substantially’ less culpable than his or her co-participants.”). The district court also properly considered the § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See United States v. Plouffe, 445 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir.2006) (amended) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 126 S.Ct. 2314, 164
holding that nothing in booker or elsewhere requires the district court to state on the record that it has explicitly considered each of the  3553a factors or to discuss each of the  3553a factors holding that plain error review is used for unpreserved challenges to the method by which the district court arrived at a sentence including arguments that the sentencing court failed to explain adequately the sentence imposed under the statutory factors in  3553a holding that sentence is reasonable when the district court properly addresses sentencing factors of  3553a recognizing that many of the  3553a factors are already incorporated into any guidelines determination and the  3553a factors can themselves overlap holding that the district court is not required to state on the record that it has explicitly considered each of the  3553a factors or to discuss each of the  3553a factors