
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Guillermo ORTEGA, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 09-30378.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 23, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 3, 2010.
    Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Mary K. Dimke, Assistant U.S., Donald M. Reno, Jr., Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Robert Harris Gombiner, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDWAFederal Public Defender’s Office, Seattle, WA, for Defendan1>-Appellant.
    Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Guillermo Ortega appeals from the 20-month and one-week 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.

Ortega contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, and that the sentence imposed was greater than necessary to accomplish the purposes of sentencing. The record reflects that the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, and provided a reasoned explanation for the sentence imposed. The district court did not procedurally err, and the sentence was substantively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Marcial-Santiago, 447 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir.2006) (finding that the need to consider unwarranted sentencing disparities is only one factor a district court is to consider in imposing a sentence).

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