
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mario SALDANA-ORTA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-50025.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 13, 2014.
    
    Filed Aug. 19, 2014.
    Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Susan Leah Park, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Amber Brooke Rabón, Esquire, Amber Rabón, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mario Saldana-Orta appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 12-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a removed alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Saldana-Orta contends that the district court procedurally erred by basing his sentence on erroneous facts concerning prior domestic violence charges. Because he did not raise this objection below, we review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.2010), and find none. Given the court’s repeated statements that the 12-month sentence was necessary as a deterrent to future illegal reentries, Saldana-Orta has not shown a reasonable probability that he would have received a different sentence. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir.2008).

Saldana-Orta also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Saldana-Orta’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The above-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Saldana-Orta’s immigration and criminal history. See id.

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