
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus TRUJILLO-BRAVO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-10434.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 29, 2010.
    Monte Cress Clausen, USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Matthew Harrison Green, Esquire, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jesus Trujillo-Bravo appeals from the 57-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We decline to review Trujillo-Bravo’s contention that the district court misapplied this Court’s precedent concerning the departure from the Sentencing Guidelines based on cultural assimilation. “After Booker, the scheme of downward and upward departures has been replaced by the requirement that judges impose a reasonable sentence.” United States v. Tankersley, 537 F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th Cir.2008) (citing United States v. Mohamed, 459 F.3d 979, 986 (9th Cir.2006)). “The old departure scheme is relevant today only insofar as factors that might have supported (or not supported) a departure may tend to show that a non-guidelines sentence is (or is not) reasonable.” Tankersley, 537 F.3d at 1114.

The record indicates that the district court’s sentencing explanation was adequate under the circumstances, and that the court did not otherwise procedurally err. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 359, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). Under the totality of the circumstances and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), we cannot say that the 57-month bottom-of-the-Guidelines sentence imposed by the district court was substantively unreasonable. See Carty, 520 F.3d at 993.

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