
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hector Luis MONTERROZO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-10348.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 5, 2010.
    
    Filed April 21, 2010.
    Dominique Thomas, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Angela Milella Hansen, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender, Oakland, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: RYMER, MCKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Hector Luis Monterrozo appeals from the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm, but remand to correct the judgment.

Monterrozo contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. The record indicates that the court did properly consider the sentencing factors, and Monterrozo did not provide any arguments requiring further explanation. See United States v. Ferguson, 560 F.3d 1060, 1065 (9th Cir.2009).

Monterrozo also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, the bottom-of-the-Guidelines sentence was not unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

In accordance with United States v. Rivera-Sanchez, 222 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir.2000), we remand the case to the district court with instructions that it delete from the judgment the incorrect reference to § 1326(b). See United States v. Herrera-Blanco, 232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir.2000) (remanding sua sponte to delete the reference to § 1326(b)).

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