
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricardo SOLIS-MORALES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-50470.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Oct. 5, 2010.
    Christopher Seth Asians, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Lynn Howard Ball, Law Office of Lynn H. Ball, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. 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

Ricardo Solis-Morales appeals from the 77-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.

Solis-Morales contends the district court failed to adequately consider each of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including sentencing disparity, the family circumstances that caused him to reenter, and alleged prejudice caused by the delay in prosecution which he contends deprived him of a concurrent sentence. The record indicates that the district court adequately considered and addressed Solis-Morales’s arguments regarding sentencing disparities and his family, and its explanation of the sentence was sufficient to allow for meaningful appellate review. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356-59, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc) (“The district court need not tick off each of the § 3553(a) factors to show that it has considered them”). In addition, even if the district court erred by failing to address Solis-Morales’s argument for a variance based on the delay in prosecution, Solis-Morales has not met his burden of demonstrating that the alleged error affected his substantial rights and the integrity of the judicial process. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761 (9th Cir.2008).

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