
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin Omar RAMIREZ-BUSTAMANTE, a.k.a. Martin Omar Ramirez, a.k.a. Mario Rodriguez-Vasquez, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 15-10148, 15-10149.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 15, 2016.
    
    Decided March 21, 2016.
    Ryan P. Dejoe, Assistant U.S., USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Dan W. Montgomery, Law Office of Dan Montgomery, Tucson, AZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, 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

In these consolidated appeals, Martin Omar Ramirez-Bustamante appeals the 24-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the 21-month partially consecutive sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Ramirez-Bustamante contends that the district court erred py imposing the sentences to run partially consecutive, rather than fully concurrent. He argues that the aggregate 36-month sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his age, military service, and reasons for reentering the United States. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Ramirez-Bustamante’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The aggregate sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Ramirez-Bustamante’s criminal and immigration history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586; United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir.2007); see also U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f) (recommending that a revocation sentence run consecutively to any other term of imprisonment).

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