
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis PADILLA-MEDINA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-50364.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 25, 2015.
    
    Filed Sept. 1, 2015.
    Ryan A. Sausedo, Peter Ko, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Erick L. Guzman, Esquire, Law Offices of Erick Guzman, Santa Rosa, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Jose Luis Padillar-Medina, Adelanto, CA, pro se.
    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

Jose Luis Padilla-Medina appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 30-month aggregate sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for two counts of improper entry by an alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Padilla-Medina contends that the district court procedurally erred by manipulating the Guidelines calculation in order to impose a pre-determined sentence. We review for plain error, see United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761 (9th Cir.2008), and find none. Padilla-Medina has not shown a reasonable probability that he would have received a different sentence absent the alleged error. See id. at 762.

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