
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eden VALDEZ-ANGULO, a.k.a. Eden Valdez Angulo, a.k.a. Miguel Valdez-Angulo, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-10333.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 7, 2014.
    Decided April 11, 2014.
    Dominique Juliet Park, Special Assistant U.S., USPX-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Carlton Gunn, Esquire, Kaye, McLane, Bednarski & Litt, LLP Pasadena, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Eden Valdez-Angulo appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 48-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Valdez-Angulo first contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the imposition of two criminal history points under U.S.S.G. § 4Al.l(d) turned solely on the “happenstance” of the timing of his discovery by immigration officials. Relying on United States v. Amezcuar-Vasquez, 567 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir.2009), Valdez-Angulo also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his limited roles in his prior convictions, one of which resulted in a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(vii).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Valdez-Angulo’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Unlike the sentence in Amezcua-Vasquez, Valdez-Angulo’s below-Guidelines sentence properly reflects the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Valdez-Angulo’s criminal and immigration history. See id.

Finally, Valdez-Angulo contends that Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), has been undermined and that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional. As Valdez-Angulo concedes, this argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Almazan-Becerra, 482 F.3d 1085, 1091 (9th Cir.2007).

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