
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jaime LEMUS-MARINES, a.k.a. Jaime Lemus, a.k.a. Jaime Lemus-Marilius, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-10218.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
    
    Filed March 1, 2012.
    Matthew G. Eltringham, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Andrea Lynn Matheson, Andrea L. Matheson — Matheson Law Firm, P.C., Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jaime Lemus-Marines appeals from the 46-month 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.

Lemus-Marines contends that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court did not specifically discuss his principal arguments in favor of a shorter sentence. The record reflects that the district court adequately considered and addressed Lemus-Marines’s arguments and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356-58, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). Furthermore, in light of the totality of the circumstances and the section 3553(a) sentencing factors, Lemus-Marines’s within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

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