
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel PEREZ-LOPEZ, aka Eduardo Medina-Elenes, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-10694.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Feb. 26, 2008.
    
    Filed March 11, 2008.
    Joan G. Ruffennach, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Law Office of Neil C. Labarge, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Manuel Perez-Lopez appeals from the 37 month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Perez-Lopez contends that the district court erred by denying a two-level downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3El.l(a). We conclude that the district court did not clearly err. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 cmt. n. 1-2 (2006); see also United States v. Magana-Guerrero, 80 F.3d 398, 402 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Lying with the hope of avoiding a degree of culpability or punishment is the very antithesis of acceptance of responsibility.”)

Perez-Lopez also contends that the within-Guidelines range sentence imposed was unreasonable because it failed to account for the age of the prior conviction used to enhance his base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(B). We conclude that the sentence imposed is reasonable. See Gall v. United States, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 586, 594, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

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