
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Felipe ZAMORA-VILLELA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-50595.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.
    
    Filed Jan. 21, 2011.
    Arnold Dale Blankenship, Assistant U.S., Lara Alaine Stingley, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Kristi A. Hughes, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, 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

Felipe Zamora-Villela appeals from the 36-month mandatory minimum sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for bringing in illegal aliens for financial gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii), bringing in illegal aliens without presentation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(iii), and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Zamora-Villela contends that because 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) permits a district court to impose a sentence below a mandatory minimum, the district court erred by imposing a substantively unreasonable sentence. Zamora-Villela’s contention is foreclosed by United States v. Wipf, 620 F.3d 1168, 1170-71 (9th Cir.2010) (Subsection (a) of section 3553 does not authorize a court to impose a sentence below the mandatory statutory minimum).

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