
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Carlos LOPEZ-GUZMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 15-10360
    15-10361
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 14, 2016 
    
    FILED June 21, 2016
    
      Susan Cushman, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ—Office of the US Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee (Case No. 16-10360).
    Peter Stuart Levitt, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USLY-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, Elizabeth Olson White, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USRE—Office of the US Attorney-Reno, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Amy B. Cleary, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Erica Choi, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Daniel Gerard Bogden, Esquire, U.S. Attorney, USLV—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee (Case No. 15-10361).
    Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, 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, Juan Carlos Lopez-Guzman appeals the 41-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found unlawfully in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), and the eight-month, consecutive sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Lopez-Guzman contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain the sentences adequately and to consider the applicable sentencing factors. With respect to the revocation sentence, he contends that the court erred by relying on improper sentencing factors and on clearly erroneous facts. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The record reflects that the district court considered Lopez-Guzman’s arguments and the applicable sentencing factors, did not rely on any improper factor or clearly erroneous facts, and adequately explained the sentence. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358-59, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).

Lopez-Guzman next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the circumstances and staleness of his prior alien smuggling offense. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The 49-month aggregate sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a) and 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the need to deter Lopez-Guzman from future criminal activity. 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.
     