
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alejandro HERNANDEZ-ACOSTA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-50441.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 22, 2014.
    
    Filed July 29, 2014.
    Jonathan I. Shapiro, Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Ricardo M. Gonzalez, Law Office of Ricardo Gonzalez, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Alejandro Hernandez-Acosta appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Hernandez-Acosta contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to calculate properly the Sentencing Guidelines range. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.2010), and find none. The record reflects that the district court accepted the parties’ agreed-upon Guidelines calculations, granted a fast-track departure and a minor role adjustment, and then varied upward in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. The district court did not err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 990-91 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

Hernandez-Acosta also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Hernandez-Acosta’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the seriousness of the offense and the need to protect the public. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2).

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