
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ivan AREVALO-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-10142.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.
    
    Filed Jan. 24, 2011.
    
      Laurie K. Gray, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Barbara Valliere, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    George Claude Boisseau, Esquire, Law Offices of George C. Boisseau, Santa Rosa, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. 
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ivan Arevalo-Hernandez appeals from the 36-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Arevalo-Hernandez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to address his argument for a sentence in the Guidelines range applicable to defendants offered fast-track dispositions. The record reflects that the district court did not procedurally err. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 359, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007); United States v. Gonzalez-Zotelo, 556 F.3d 736, 740 (9th Cir.2009), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 130 S.Ct. 83, 175 L.Ed.2d 57 (2009).

Furthermore, under the totality of the circumstances, the below-Guidelines sentence was not substantively unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51-52, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

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