
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hector Murcia RAMIREZ, a.k.a. Hector Murica Ramirez, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-50389.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 14, 2015.
    
    Filed Oct. 19, 2015.
    Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Lawrence Elliot Kole, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Santa Ana, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Andrea Jacobs, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Santa Ana, CA, Gia Kim, Esquire, Deputy Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los An-geles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Hector Murcia Ramirez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 37-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. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm but remand with instructions to the district court to correct the judgment.

Ramirez argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his alleged cultural assimilation, and because his prior conviction for drug trafficking, which triggered a 16-level sentencing enhancement, is “relatively non-serious” and stale. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Ramirez’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Ramirez’s criminal and immigration history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

In accordance with United States v. Rivera-Sanchez, 222 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir.2000), we remand the case to the district court with instructions that it delete from the judgment the reference to section 1326(b)(2).

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