
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cesar Francisco FLORES-MONTIEL, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos, 15-50036, 15-50038.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 25, 2015.
    
    Filed Sept. 1, 2015.
    Coretta Catlin, Peter Ko, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Benjamin P. Davis, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Kristi A. Hughes, Federal Defenders of San Diego, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, 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, Cesar Francisco Flores-Montiel appeals the 24-month sentence imposed upon his guilty-plea conviction for attempted reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the eight-month custodial sentence and three-year term of supervised release imposed upon revocation of probation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Flores-Montiel contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain adequately the 24-month sentence imposed for his new criminal conviction. This claim fails. The record reflects that the court sufficiently explained its reasons for imposing the within-Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

Flores-Montiel next contends that the sentence imposed upon revocation of probation is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Flores-Montiel’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The term of supervised releasé and the below-Guidelines custodial sentence are substantively reasonable in light of the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Flores-Montiel’s criminal and immigration history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51,128 S.Ct. 586; United States v. Valdavinos-Torres, 704 F.3d 679, 692-93 (9th Cir.2012).

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