
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rogelio MELENDEZ-RODRIGUEZ, a.k.a. Jose Gonzalez Gonzalez, a.k.a. Rogelio Rodriguez Melendez, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-10549.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 22, 2014.
    
    Filed July 29, 2014.
    Nirav Kaushik Desai, USSAC-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    John Paul Balazs, Law Offices of John P. Balazs, Sacramento, 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

Rogelio Melendez-Rodriguez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 37-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United" States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm, but remand to correct the judgment.

Melendez-Rodriguez contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his mitigating circumstances and the age of his prior conviction for possession of a controlled substance for sale, which triggered a 12-level enhancement. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Melendez-Rodriguez’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Melendez-Rodriguez’s criminal history and eight previous deportations. See id.

In accordance with United States v. Rivera-Sanchez, 222 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir.2000), we remand the case to the district court with instructions that it delete from the judgment the incorrect reference to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). See United States v. Herrera-Blanco, 232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir.2000) (remanding sua sponte to delete the reference to section 1326(b) in the judgment of conviction).

AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct the judgment. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     