
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leo Nicolas GASGA-AMAYA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-50531.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 8, 2011.
    
    Filed Nov. 8, 2011.
    Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Gerald Thomas McFadden, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TASHIMA, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Leo Nicolas Gasga-Amaya appeals from the 60-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.

Gasga-Amaya contends that the district court committed procedural error by imposing an upward variance largely on the basis of its perceived need for deterrence notwithstanding Gasga-Amaya’s promise not to return to the United States. The district court did not commit procedural error. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-92 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

Gasga-Amaya also contends that the district court committed procedural error by failing to explain adequately its rationale for imposing an upward variance under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and by failing to follow the proper procedure for imposing such a variance. The record belies these contentions.

Lastly, Gasga-Amaya contends that the sentence above the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range is substantively unreasonable. The 60-month sentence was substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, particularly the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the need to afford adequate deterrence. 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.
     