
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Megan Mariel MORRILLO, a.k.a. Megan Mariel, a.k.a. Megan Morrillo, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-10044.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 17, 2012.
    
    Filed Jan. 19, 2012.
    Jonathan Baghdassarian Granoff, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Deirdre M. Mokos, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDAZ-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: LEAVY, 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

Megan Mariel Morrillo appeals from the 30-month sentence imposed following her guilty plea to assault resulting in serious bodily injury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 113(a)(6) and 1153. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Morrillo contends the sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of her many compelling mitigating factors and the district court’s impermissibly narrow focus on the seriousness of the offense and the need for general deterrence. Morrillo’s sentence at the low end of the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir.2009) (“The weight to be given the various [section 3553(a) sentencing] factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.”).

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