
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge Rolando VEGA-CHICHE, aka George Roland Vega, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-50252.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 10, 2006.
    
    Submission Withdrawn and Deferred April 10, 2006.
    Resubmitted May 8, 2006.
    Submission Withdrawn and Deferred Sept. 7, 2006.
    Resubmitted June 23, 2008.
    Filed June 25, 2008.
    Becky S. Walker, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, Sheri N. Pym, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Riverside, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Vicki Marolt Buchanan, Esq., Newport Beach, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: WARDLAW and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and CEBULL , District Judge.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Richard F. Cebull, United States District Judge for the District of Montana, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Appellant Jorge Rolando Vega-Chiche (Vega-Chiche) challenges his sentence, asserting that the district court gave more weight to the Sentencing Guidelines than to the other sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and that the district court was required to make factual findings regarding each of the § 3553(a) factors.

To comply with United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), the district court need only have sufficiently “considered the Guidelines as well as the other factors listed in § 3553(a).” United States v. Knows His Gun, 438 F.3d 913, 918 (9th Cir.2006). “This requirement does not necessitate a specific articulation of each factor separately, but rather a showing that the district court considered the statutorily-designated factors in imposing a sentence.” Id. (citations omitted).

Because the record does not reflect that the district court gave more weight to the Guidelines than to the other § 3553(a) factors, Vega-Chiche’s assertion to the contrary is unfounded. Additionally, the record reflects that the district court considered factors listed in § 3553(a). Consequently, the sentence imposed was reasonable. See Rita v. United States, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2465, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007); see also United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     