
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rosario RODRIGUEZ-PORTILLO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-50071.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 9, 2012.
    
    Filed Oct. 16, 2012.
    Shane P. Harrigan, Esquire, Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Paul A. Barr, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rosario Rodríguez-Portillo appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Rodríguez-Portillo contends that the district court procedurally erred by (1) failing to use the Guidelines sentencing range as a starting point, (2) failing to keep the Guidelines range in mind during sentencing, and (3) relying on deterrence and the need to protect the public to the exclusion of other 18 U.S.C. § 8553(a) factors. The record does not support these contentions. The district court determined the correct Guidelines sentencing range, listened to Rodriguez-Portillo’s mitigating arguments, considered the section 3553(a) factors, and sufficiently explained its reasons for imposing an above-Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

Rodríguez-Portillo also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the section 3553(a) sentencing factors, the 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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     