
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sijifredo DELGADILLO-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-50437.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted June 22, 2015.
    
    Filed June 26, 2015.
    Sandra Payne Hagood, Special Assistant U.S., Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Gary Paul Burcham, Burcham & Zug-man, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sijifredo Delgadillo-Ramirez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 24-month custodial sentence and three-year term of supervised release 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.

Delgadillo-Ramirez contends that the 24-mopth custodial sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the circumstances of the offense and the alleged - staleness of his criminal history. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Delgadillo-Ramirez’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Delga-dillo-Ramirez’s violent criminal history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

Delgadillo-Ramirez also contends that the three-year term of supervised release is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Delgadillo-Ramirez’s term of supervised release as an added measure of deterrence in light of his criminal and immigration history. See U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 cmt. n. 5; United States v. Valdavinos-Torres, 704 F.3d 679, 692-93 (9th Cir.2012).

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