
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donell HATCHER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-10591.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.
    
    Filed Dec. 27, 2011.
    Laurie K. Gray, Esquire, Barbara Valliere, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Peter Arthur Furst, Esquire, Furst & Pendergast LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Donell Hatcher, pro se.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Donell Hatcher appeals from the 36-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for failure to appear, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3146(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Hatcher contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider all of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and by failing to explain adequately its reasons for the sentence imposed. The record belies Hatcher’s contentions. The district court is not required to refer to each § 3553(a) factor. See United States v. Mix, 457 F.3d 906, 912-13 (9th Cir.2006). The district court’s explanation of Hatcher’s sentence was sufficient. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992, 995 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

Hatcher also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. Hatcher’s contentions that the district court erred in declining to apply a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, and in rejecting his argument that his criminal history category overrepresented his criminal history, are not supported by the record. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the within-Guidelines sentence is reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 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.
     