
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Grosbin MARTINEZ-GEORGE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-50429.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 9, 2015.
    
    Filed Dec. 16, 2015.
    Matthew Sutton, Assistant U.S., Peter Ko, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
    Cristina Gabrielidis, Esquire, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument.
      
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Grosbin Martinez-George appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 36-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a removed alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. .§ 1291, and we affirm.

Martinez-George argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his alleged cultural assimilation, the disparity that resulted from the district court’s denial of the fast-track departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1, the court’s imposition of supervised release, and the fact that he will be subject to deportation after his release from custody. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Martinez-George’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Martinez-George’s criminal and immigration history and the 28-month sentence imposed on his prior conviction for illegal reentry. 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     