
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adalix LORENZO-MACIAL, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-10046.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 5, 2010.
    
    Filed April 15, 2010.
    Aaron David Wegner, Assistant U.S., Office of The U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Leslie Ann Bowman, Esquire, Law Office of Leslie A. Bowman, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Adalix Lorenzo-Macial appeals from the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Lorenzo-Macial contends that the district court erred at sentencing by: (1) misconstruing its authority to vary from the Guidelines range in the absence of extraordinary circumstances; (2) failing to consider his mitigating circumstances; and (3) declining to impose a lower sentence in order to achieve parity with fast-track defendants. The record indicates that the district court did not procedurally err. See United Staten v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 994-96 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Gonzalez-Zotelo, 556 F.3d 736, 739-40 (9th Cir.2009).

Lorenzo-Macial also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his mitigating personal circumstances and the age of a prior conviction that was the basis for a 16-level enhancement, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). The sentence imposed is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51-52, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); cf. United States v. Amezcua-Vasquez, 567 F.3d 1050, 1055-56 (9th Cir.2009).

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