MEMORANDUM **

Ana Martha Armenta-Penuelas appeals from the 48-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(l)(A)(viii), and importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960(a)(1) and (b)(1)(H).[*679] We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Armenta-Penuelas contends that the district court erred by giving her a minor role reduction rather than a minimal role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. In light of the district court’s finding that Armenta-Penuelas knew she was carrying drugs and was prepared to accept money in return, the district court did not clearly err. See United States v. Davis, 36 F.3d 1424, 1436-37 (9th Cir.1994).

Armenta-Penuelas also contends that, despite granting a downward variance, the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and by failing specifically to address her arguments for a variance. The district court “need not tick off each of the § 3553(a) factors to show that it has considered them.” United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). The record reflects that the court considered the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and Armenta-Penuelas’s arguments.

Armenta-Penuelas lastly contends that her sentence is substantively unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, the below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

AFFIRMED.