
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hugo CONTRERAS-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-50189
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 8, 2017 
    
    Filed May 11, 2017
    Ryan A. Sausedo, Helen H. Hong, Nicole Ries Fox, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Rebecca C. Fish, Trial Attorney, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Hugo Contreras-Hernandez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 30-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a removed 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.

Contreras-Hernandez contends that the district court erred when it denied his request for departures for imperfect duress under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.12, lesser harm under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.11, and combination of circumstances under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0(c). We do not review the procedural correctness of a district court’s decision not to depart from the Sentencing Guidelines range. See United States v. Vasquez-Cruz, 692 F.3d 1001, 1005-08 (9th Cir. 2012). Instead, we review the ultimate sentence for substantive reasonableness. Id. at 1008. The low-end sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Contreras-Hernandez’s criminal history, his prior illegal reentry conviction, and his failure to be deterred by the sentence for that conviction. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Moreover, contrary to Contreras-Hernandez’s contention, the record reflects that the district court considered his departure requests and adequately explained the sentence imposed. 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     