
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodolfo PARTIDA-DeREAL, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-30089.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 17, 2013.
    
    Filed Jan. 3, 2014.
    Kelly A. Zusman, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Harold P. Ducloux, III, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDOR-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Rodolfo Partida-DeReal, pro se.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rodolfo Partida-DeReal appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 32-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Partida-DeReal contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court placed too much emphasis on deterrence and failed to adequately account for his history and characteristics. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Partida-DeReal’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The court varied downward to account for the age of Partida-DeReal’s pri- or conviction. The sentence 14 months below the low end of the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Partida-DeReal’s criminal and immigration history. See id.

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