
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Armando BAUTISTA-ESPINOZA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-50115.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 24, 2016.
    
    Filed Feb. 29, 2016.
    Alex Markle, Special Assistant U.S., Peter Ko, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Julie A. Blair, Esquire, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Armando Bautista-Espinoza appeals the 24-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for 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.

Bautista-Espinoza argues that the district court procedurally erred by relying on his prior conviction for vehicular manslaughter to the exclusion of all other 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the mitigating facts. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barraban, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.2010), and find none. The record reflects that the court considered a range of section 3553(a) sentencing factors and Bautista-Espinoza’s sentencing arguments, and sufficiently explained its determination that an upward variance was warranted. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

Bautista-Espinoza also contends that his above-Guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The sentence is not substantively unreasonable in light of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Bautista-Espinoza’s criminal history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

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