
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos MUNOZ-DURAN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-50095.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
    
    Filed Dec. 14, 2009.
    Jaime D. Parks, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jennifer Lynn Coon, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Carlos Munoz-Duran appeals from the 37-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Munoz-Duran contends that the district court erred by applying an upward departure under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.8 based on his criminal history, and by failing to adequately consider his mitigating arguments, and that the resulting sentence is substantively unreasonable. The record reflects that the district court did not procedurally err in its calculation of the advisory sentencing Guideline range or consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and that the sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Higuera-Llamos, 574 F.3d 1206,1212 (9th Cir.2009).

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