
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Raul AYALA-MEDINA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-50481.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 23, 2014.
    
    Filed Oct. 1, 2014.
    Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., William P. Cole, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Devin Burstein, Devin Burstein, Esq., La Jolla, CA, Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, 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

Jose Raul Ayala-Medina appeals from the district court’s judgment and' challenges the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of methamphetamine and heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Ayala-Medina contends that his above-Guidelines sentence is greater than necessary under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in light of his individual circumstances, including his age, lack of criminal history, and motivation for committing the offense. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Ayala-Medina’s sentence. See. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The sentence, three-months above the high end of the Guidelines range, is substantively reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See id.; see also United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir.2009) (“The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.”).

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