
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mario SOTELO-AYALA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-50570.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 20, 2016.
    
    Filed Jan. 28, 2016.
    Peter Ko, Assistant U.S., Christopher Alexander, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Colin M. McDonald, Assistant U.S., U.S. Department of Justice, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Kristi A. Hughes, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defen-dani>-Appellant.
    
      Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mario Sotelo-Ayala appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Sotelo-Ayala asserts that the district court procedurally erred by failing to appreciate its discretion under Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007), to deviate from the Guidelines based on policy disagreements. We disagree. The record reflects that the court considered Sotelo-Ayala’s Kim-brough argument, and that it was aware of its discretion to vary from the Guidelines. See United States v. Ayala-Nicanor, 659 F.3d 744, 753 (9th Cir.2011) (“[TJhat the court imposed a below Guidelines sentence demonstrates that it was well aware of its ability to do so under Supreme Court precedent.”).

Sotelo-Ayala next contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider his sentencing arguments and by failing to explain adequately its sentencing decision. Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Grissom, 525 F.3d 691, 695-96 (9th Cir.2008), we find no error. The record demonstrates that the district court considered and addressed Sotelo-Ayala’s arguments for leniency, ■ and the court’s explanation of the sentence was adequate. See United States v. Amezcua-Vasquez, 567 F.3d 1050, 1053-54 (9th Cir.2009).

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