
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benito LOAIZA-PARRA, a.k.a. Jose Martinez-Gutierrez, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 14-10492, 14-10544.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Sept. 21, 2015.
    
    Filed Sept. 25, 2015.
    Elizabeth Olson White, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Reno, NV, Robert A. Bork, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Alina Maria Shell, Federal Public Defender’s Office Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

In these consolidated appeals, Benito Loaiza-Parra appeals the 30-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found unlawfully in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Loaiza-Parra argues that the sentences are substantively unreasonable in light of his difficult history and circumstances, and other mitigating factors. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Loaiza-Parra’s sentences. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The within-Guidelines sentences are substantively reasonable in light of the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Loaiza-Parra’s extensive criminal and immigration history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586; United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir.2009) (“The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.”).

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