
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lucio MORA-TARULA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-50108.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
    
    Filed Feb. 23, 2011.
    Amie Danielle Rooney, Assistant U.S., San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Vincent James Brunkow, Esquire, Assistant Appellate Supervisor, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Lucio Mora-Tarula appeals from the 72-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. § 1826. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Mora-Tarula argues that the district court procedurally erred in failing to explain the sentence adequately and failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors.

We review for plain error, see United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761 (9th Cir.2008), and affirm because Mora-Tarula has not established plain error by the district court, much less that his substantial rights may have been affected, see id. at 761-62.

Mora-Tarula also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the below-Guidelines sentence 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. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108-09 (9th Cir.2010).

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