
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge SANCHEZ-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-50092.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
    
    Filed Feb. 23, 2012.
    Sean Coyle, Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney CV, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Brian Paul Funk, Esquire, Law Offices of Brian P. Funk, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jorge Sanchez-Ramirez appeals from the 57-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Sanchez-Ramirez contends that he should have been sentenced to no more than two years, the statutory maximum stated in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Contrary to his contention, the statutory maximum in this case is 20 years because of his prior aggravated felony conviction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2).

Sanchez-Ramirez next contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain adequately the sentence imposed and by failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. The record reflects that the district court considered the Sanchez-Ramirez’s arguments and adequately explained its reasons for imposing a sentence 13 months below the advisory Guidelines range. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992, 995 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). Further, in light of the totality of the circumstances and the section 3553(a) sentencing factors, Sanchez-Ramirez’s sentence is substantively reasonable. See id. at 993.

Sanchez-Ramirez’s motion for leave to file a pro se supplemental brief is denied. Because Sanchez-Ramirez is represented by counsel, only counsel may submit filings. Accordingly, we do not consider the pro se filings received on October 18, 2011, and December 29, 2011.

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