
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Melecio ALDANA-ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-50276.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 18, 2010.
    Michael Lewis Merriman, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    James M. Chavez, Esquire, Trial, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Melecio Aldana-Ortiz appeals from the 68-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Aldana-Ortiz contends that the district court procedurally erred by: (1) failing to respond to his non-frivolous argument that a sixteen-level enhancement, under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, was sufficient to compensate for any underrepresentation in his criminal history score, and (2) focusing on the need for deterrence to the exclusion of the other 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. The record reflects that the district court did not procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

Aldana-Ortiz further contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable under United States v. Amezcua-Vasquez, 567 F.3d 1050, 1056 (9th Cir.2009), because the sixteen-level enhancement was predicated on a “stale” conviction. In light of the totality of the circumstances of this case and the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, the sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 600 F.3d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir.2010); United States v. Higuera-Llamos, 574 F.3d 1206, 1211-12 (9th Cir.2009); cf. Amezcua-Vasquez, 567 F.3d at 1055-57.

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