
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus REYES-LIZARRAGA, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 16-10353, 16-10354
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 11, 2017
    
    Filed July 17, 2017
    Michael LoGalbo, USPX—Office of the US Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Francisco Leon, Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Francisco Leon, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.'
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

In these consolidated appeals, Jesus Reyes-Lizarraga appeals the 28-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the four-month consecutive sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Reyes-Lizarraga contends that his aggregate sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to give sufficient weight to the 2016 amendments to the illegal reentry guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, which were promulgated but not effective at the time of his sentencing. The record reflects that the court took account of the pending changes to the guideline and granted a significant downward variance. The court did not abuse its discretion in determining that a further downward variance was unwarranted in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Reyes-Lizarraga’s significant 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. Ruiz-Apolonio, 657 F.3d 907, 918 (9th Cir. 2011) (“That the Commission has promulgated a not-yet-adopted amendment that is very likely to be adopted and that would result in reduced Guidelines ranges does not render a district court’s failure to grant a variance substantively unreasonable.”).

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