
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Omar Angel SERRANO-GUERRERO, a.k.a. Omar Angel Serrano, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 09-50160.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 14, 2010.
    Harvinder S. Anand, Assistant U.S., Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Phillip Irwin Bronson, Esquire, Law Offices of Phillip I. Bronson, Sherman Oaks, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Omar Angel Serrano-Guerrero appeals from the 86-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being an illegal alien found in the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Serrano-Guerrero contends that the district court procedurally erred at sentencing by: 1) failing to consider all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 factors; 2) presuming that the Guidelines range was reasonable; and 3) failing to adequately address his mitigating arguments. The record reflects that the district court did not procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

Serrano-Guerrero also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the district court’s failure to depart downward based on Serrano-Guerrero’s lost opportunity to serve his federal sentence concurrent to a state sentence. The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to impose a lower sentence on this basis. See id. at 993. Serrano-Guerrero also contends, for the first time on appeal, that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because the Guidelines range is based upon a 16-level enhancement for a relatively stale and minor drug trafficking offense. In light of the totality of the circumstances, the within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. See id.; cf. United States v. Amezcua-Vasquez, 567 F.3d 1050, 1055-56 (9th Cir.2009).

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