
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio REYES-NAVARRO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-50438.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 27, 2013.
    
    Filed April 10, 2014.
    Lawrence Casper, Assistant U.S., Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Harini P. Raghupathi, Esquire, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: HUG, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Antonio Reyes-Navarro 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. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Reyes-Navarro contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. We review for abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The district court did not abuse its discretion. The 48-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including Reyes-Navarro’s criminal history and the need to protect the public, promote respect for the law, and provide deterrence. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586. It was not illogical for the district court ultimately to impose a higher sentence in the hope that the higher sentence would deter Reyes-Navarro from illegally reentering the United States again, and it was permissible for the district court to place more weight on the need to protect the public given the many times that Reyes-Navarro had returned to the United States and driven under the influence. See United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir.2009) (recognizing that the “weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court” and holding that the district court did not place undue weight on the need for deterrence where the defendant repeatedly entered the United States illegally); see also United States v. Treadwell, 593 F.3d 990, 1014 (9th Cir.2010) (holding that district court did not abuse its discretion by determining that deterrence and protection of the public outweighed other § 3553(a) factors where court had evidence that defendant was a likely repeat offender who posed a substantial risk to others).

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