
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fernando SILVA-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-50510.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2011.
    
    Filed June 3, 2011.
    
      Matthew John Gardner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    James Fife, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Fernando Silva-Lopez appeals from the 55-month sentence imposed following his bench-trial 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.

Silva-Lopez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to address his mitigating arguments and for not articulating a rationale for its sentencing decision. The record reflects that the district court considered Silva-Lopez’s arguments in mitigation, but found the circumstances insufficient to warrant a sentence below the Guidelines range. See United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988, 999-1000 (9th Cir.2008). The district court provided an adequate explanation for the sentence imposed, and did not otherwise procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). Moreover, the sentence in the middle of the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and 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).

Silva-Lopez’s contention regarding the application of a 16-level enhancement for a prior conviction for a crime of violence is foreclosed. See United States v. Laurico-Yeno, 590 F.3d 818, 822-23 (9th Cir.2010).

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