
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lorenzo GONZALEZ, a.k.a. Grumpy, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-50478
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted January 18, 2017 
    
    Filed January 24, 2017
    Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Kevin M. Lally, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Justin Randall Rhoades, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Jennie Wang, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    James S. Bisnow, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of James S. Bisnow, Pasadena, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R, App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Lorenzo Gonzalez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 262-month sentence imposed upon resen-tencing after remand following his jury-trial conviction for one count of racketeering influenced and corrupt organizations conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), and two counts of violent crime in aid of racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.- § 1291, and we affirm.

Gonzalez contends that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court declined to impose the below-guidelines sentence recommended by the probation officer. The record reflects that the district court adequately explained its reasons for not accepting the probation officer’s recommendation. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Gonzalez’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the seriousness of Gonzalez’s offenses and the need for deterrence. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     