
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricardo TLATEMPA-TORRES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-10139.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 12, 2013.
    
    Filed Oct. 23, 2013.
    Erica Leigh Seger, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Alfred Islas, Alfred Islas, Attorney-at-Law, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: HUG, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ricardo Tlatempa-Torres appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Tlatempa-Torres contends that the sentence, which is at the bottom of the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range, is substantively unreasonable. We review for abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the 46-month sentence. The sentence is not substantively unreasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including the appellant’s criminal history, the seriousness of the offense, and the need for the sentence to provide deterrence and protect the public. See id.; United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108-09 (9th Cir.2010).

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