
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Misael CORONA-ROMERO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-10621.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Sept. 26, 2013.
    
    Erica Leigh Seger, Assistant U.S., Ustu-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Ramiro Flores, Jr., Law Office of Ramiro S. Flores Esq., Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Misael Corona-Romero appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 77-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Corona-Romero contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and by failing to explain adequately the sentence. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.2010), and find none. Although the district court did not explicitly reject the arguments raised by Corona-Romero, the record reflects that the court considered those arguments along with the section 3553(a) sentencing factors, and adequately explained the sentence imposed. See United States v. Perez-Perez, 512 F.3d 514, 516-17 (9th Cir.2008).

Corona-Romero also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Corona-Romero’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The 77-month sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines is substantively reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Corona-Romero’s criminal history. See id.

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