
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramon CONTRERAS-FLORES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-30052.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 18, 2015.
    
    Filed Nov. 23, 2015.
    Alison L. Gregoire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Yakima, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Rebecca Louise Pennell, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defenders of Eastern Washington & Idaho, Yakima, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ramon Contreras-Flores appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and the 30-month sentence for being an alien found in the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Contreras-Flores first contends that his conviction under Washington Revised Code § 69.50.401 for delivery of methamphetamine is not a categorical drug trafficking offense, thereby making his underlying deportation order invalid. As Contreras-Flores concedes, his argument is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Burgos-Ortega, 777 F.3d 1047, 1052-55 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2848, 192 L.Ed.2d 883 (2015).

Next, Contreras-Flores asserts that the district court erred by failing to explain adequately its decision to grant a one-level downward adjustment to his base offense level, but still impose a sentence within the original Guidelines range. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The district court sufficiently explained its reasons for imposing the sentence, highlighting the need for deterrence and protection of the public. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

Contreras-Flores finally claims that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Contreras-Flores’ sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.'

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