
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose ESPINOZA-VENTURA, a.k.a. Alfredo Ernesto-Ramirez, a.k.a. Jesus Jose Tobar, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-10329.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 10, 2015.
    
    Filed March 18, 2015.
    Robert A. Bork, Assistant U.S., USLV-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NY, Elizabeth Olson White, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USRE-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Reno, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Alina Maria Shell, Federal Public Defender’s Office Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, 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 Espinoza-Ventura appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 24-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found unlawfully in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Espinoza-Ventura contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the staleness of his prior conviction and his cultural assimilation. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Espinoza-Ventura’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The 24-month 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. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586; see also United States v. Burgos-Ortega, 777 F.3d 1047, 1057 (9th Cir.2015) (noting that the defendant’s staleness argument “was taken into account under the post-Amezcua-Vasquez Guidelines amendment reducing the increase for a prior felony not scored from 16 to 12”).

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