
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rene MARTELL-ENRIQUEZ, a.k.a. Rene Martinez-Enrigue, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-50257
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 14, 2016 
    
    FILED June 20, 2016
    Benjamin Holley, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Esther Kim Hong, Law Office of E. Hong Inc., Redlands, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rene Martell-Enriquez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 48-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(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Martell-Enriquez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider U.S.S.G. §§ 4A1.2 and 4A1.3, We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.2010), and find none. Martell-En-riquez has not identified any error in the computation of his criminal history category under section 4A1.2. Moreover, because the district court did not depart upward on the basis that Martell-Enriquez’s criminal history category was inadequate, section 4A1.3 was not a “pertinent policy statement” that the district court was required to consider under 18 U.S.C, § 3553(a)(5).

Martell-Enriquez next contends that his sentence is. substantively unreasonable. The above-Guidelines sentence is not an abuse of discretion in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Martell-Enriquez’s criminal and immigration history. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); see. also United States v. Burgos-Ortega, 777 F.3d 1047, 1056-57 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2848, 192 L.Ed.2d 883 (2015) (district court “reasonably concluded” that the need for deterrence “required a sentence at least equal to [the defendant’s] last illegal re-entry sentence”).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     