
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edgardo MARTINEZ-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-30139.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
    
    Filed March 8, 2011.
    
      Kirk Alan Engdall, United States Attorney’s Office, Eugene, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Mark Bennett Weintraub, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDOR — Federal Public Defender’s Office, Eugene, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument.
      
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Edgardo Martinez-Martinez appeals from the 30-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Martinez-Martinez contends that the district court procedurally erred by impermissibly considering his rejection of the government’s fast-track plea offer and the sentence that would have resulted therefrom. We review for plain error. See United States v. Evans-Martinez, 611 F.3d 635, 642 (9th Cir.2010). Martinez-Martinez fails to demonstrate that the district court’s inquiry into whether he rejected a plea offer was plain error that affected his substantial rights. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761-62 (9th Cir.2008).

Martinez-Martinez also contends that the sentence imposed is substantively unreasonable due to the age of the prior violent felony conviction that triggered a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A). The district court specifically considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, in conjunction with the staleness of the conviction, prior to granting a downward variance from the advisory Guidelines range. See United States v. Amezcuar-Vasquez, 567 F.3d 1050, 1054-56 (9th Cir.2009). The below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. 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.
     