
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victor Rodolfo Hernandez FLORES, a.k.a. Rudolfo Hernandez Florez, a.k.a. Uriel Perez Orosco, a.k.a. Ruben Lopez Orozco, a.k.a. Juan Hernandez Ramirez, a.k.a. Juan Rodolfo Ramirez, a.k.a. Filiberto Villegas-Salgado, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-10145.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 17, 2013.
    
    Filed Jan. 3, 2014.
    Owen Peter Martikan, Assistant U.S., Barbara Valliere, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Ethan Atticus Balogh, Jay A. Nelson, Coleman & Balogh LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Victor Rodolfo Hernandez Flores appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 48-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Hernandez Flores contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, to respond to his requests for a downward variance and cultural assimilation departure, and to adequately explain the sentence. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.2010), and find none. The record reflects that the district court adequately considered the section 3553(a) sentencing factors, responded to Hernandez Flores’s arguments for a variance and departure, and sufficiently explained the sentence imposed. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

We do not consider Hernandez Flores’s argument that the district court failed to properly calculate the Guidelines range and instead created a Guidelines range that would encompass the 48-month sentence, because it was raised for the first time in his reply brief. See United States v. Mejia-Pimental, 477 F.3d 1100, 1105 n. 9 (9th Cir.2007).

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