
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose PARRA-TEJEDA, a.k.a. Jose Parra-Tejada, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-30134
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 14, 2016
    
    FILED June 20, 2016
    Russell E. Smoot, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Aine Ahmed, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USSP — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Federal Defenders, Esquire, John Stephen Roberts, Jr., FPDWA — Federal Public Defender’s Office (Eastern WA &' ID), Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before; BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App, P. 34(a)(2).'
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Parra-Tejeda appeals from the district court’s judgment and' challenges the 33-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being an alien in the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Parra-Tejeda contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the mitigating factors and the 12-level enhancement he received under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A). The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Parra-Tejeda’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Parra-Tejeda’s criminal history and his failure to be deterred by a prior 33-month sentence for the same offense. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586; see also United States v. Ruiz-Chairez, 493 F.3d 1089, 1091 (9th Cir. 2007) (rejecting empirical challenge to section 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)). Moreover, contrary to Par-ra-Tejeda’s contention, the record reflects that the district court considered his arguments for a lower sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

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