
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alfredo SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-50351
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted July 26, 2016 
    
    FILED August 02, 2016
    Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Patrick Hovakimian, Assistant U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Hootan Baigmohammadi, Doug Keller, Attorney, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case, is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Alfredo Sanchez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 36-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for making a false statement in application and use of a United States passport, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1542. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm,

Sanchez contends that the district court procedurally erred by basing the sentence on clearly erroneous facts, namely that Sanchez had been previously removed on two occasions. Even assuming that Sanchez is correct that the district court clearly erred by finding that Sanchez had been removed on two prior occasions, the record reflects that the sentence was not based on that finding. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (“It would be procedural error for a district court to ... choose a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts”).

Sanchez next contends that the district court procedurally erred by faffing to respond to his mitigating argument regarding his motivation for committing the instant offense. Because Sanchez failed to raise this specific objection before the district court, we review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The record reflects that the district court considered Sanchez’s mitigating argument and adequately explained the sentence. See United States v. Ruiz-Apolonio, 657 F.3d 907, 920 (9th Cir. 2011) (“The district court is not required to provide a detailed explanation as to each of its reasons for rejecting every argument made by counsel.”).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     