
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Victor MENDEZ, a.k.a. Jose Victor Mendez Baragona, a.k.a. Juan Carlos Salgeros, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-50327.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 9, 2012.
    
    Filed Oct. 16, 2012.
    James Michael Left, Special Assistant U.S., Curtis A. Kin, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los An-geles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Anthony Eaglin, Esquire, Anthony Eag-lin, Attorney at Law, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, 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 Victor Mendez appeals from the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Mendez first contends that the district court abused its discretion by rejecting his binding plea agreement. Contrary to Mendez’s argument, the court explained its reasons for rejecting the agreement, stating that the stipulated sentence did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offense or the need to protect the public. The court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting the plea agreement on this basis. See United States v. Harris, 679 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2012).

Mendez next contends that the district court procedurally erred because it failed adequately to explain the sentence, and because it clearly erred in concluding that he is likely to reoffend. These contentions fail. The district court stated that a within-Guidelines sentence was warranted in view of Mendez’s extensive criminal history and his failure to be deterred by a prior sentence for an illegal reentry offense. This explanation was plainly sufficient. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). Moreover, the record supports the district court’s determination that Mendez is likely to reoffend.

Mendez finally contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, the sentence is substantively reasonable. See id. at 993.

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