
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Carlos BAEZA-ROSALES, Defendant—Appellant.
    Nos. 11-30026, 11-30027.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Oct. 25, 2011.
    
    Filed Oct. 27, 2011.
    Pamela Jackson Byerly, USSP-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Matthew Campbell, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDWA-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

In these consolidated appeals, Carlos Baeza-Rosales appeals from the 21-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for being an alien in the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and from the 12-month consecutive sentence imposed following the revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Baeza-Rosales contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing adequately to explain the sentence imposed. We review for plain error. See United States v. Hammons, 558 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir.2009). The district court did not plainly err, as the record reflects that it considered the relevant sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a) and 3583(e), as well as Baeza-Rosales’s arguments in mitigation, but found the circumstances insufficient to warrant a sentence below the one imposed. See United States v. Catty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

Baeza-Rosales also contends that the sentence imposed is substantively unreasonable. The consecutive sentences at or near the high end of the respective Guidelines ranges are substantively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances and in light of the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a) and 3553(e). See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

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