PER CURIAM:

∗ Honorable Amul R. Thapar, United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.

Roberto Palacios Correoso was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to steal goods from an interstate shipment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; theft of goods from an interstate shipment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 659; and making a false statement to a federal agent, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2). The jury convicted co-defendant Claudia Maritza Matute on one count of receipt and possession of stolen goods from an interstate shipment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 659, and one count of giving a false statement to a federal agent, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2). Correoso was sentenced to a 33-month total sentence and Matute was sentenced to a 24-month total sentence.

Correoso appeals his conviction, raising the following issues:

1. Whether there was sufficient evidence at trial to sustain his conviction for making a false statement to a federal agent; and

2. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to suppress evidence forensically recovered from his cell phone.

Matute appeals her conviction and sentence, raising the following issues:

1. Whether there was sufficient evidence at trial to sustain her convictions for receipt and possession of stolen goods from an interstate shipment, and giving a false statement to a federal agency;

2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by giving the jury a deliberate ignorance jury instruction, over Matute’s objection;

3. Whether the district court erred in enhancing Matute’s sentence for obstruction of justice pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1;

4. Whether the district court erred in granting Matute a 2-level minor role reduction pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b), rather than the 4-level minimal role reduction that was recommended by the presentence investigation report;

5. Whether the district court erred in denying Matute’s motion to interview jurors and for an evidentiary hearing on possible “extrinsic influence”; and

6. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Matute’s motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, and for an evidentiary hearing.

Having considered the briefs and the record, and after the benefit of oral argument, we find no reversible error as to any of the issues submitted for review on appeal. Accordingly, Correoso’s conviction and Matute’s conviction and sentence are affirmed.

AFFIRMED.