
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. German GONZALEZ-ORTIZ, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 10-30275.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 27, 2011.
    
    Filed Oct. 3, 2011.
    Kelly A. Zusman, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    C. Renee Manes, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDOR-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

German Gonzalez-Ortiz appeals from the 30-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Gonzalez-Ortiz contends that the district court committed legal error by failing to provide him with credit under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b)(1) for time spent in immigration custody prior to being charged with the instant offense. This contention fails because the district court does not have authority to apply section 3585(b) at sentencing. See United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 333-35, 112 S.Ct. 1351, 117 L.Ed.2d 593 (1992) (Bureau of Prisons “has the responsibility for administering the sentence”).

To the extent that Gonzalez-Ortiz contends that the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence when it failed to credit him with time spent in immigration custody prior to being charged with illegal reentry, this contention fails because the record reflects that the district court did not procedurally err at sentencing and that, under the totality of the circumstances, the sentence below the Guidelines range is not substantively unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

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