
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jaime GARCIA-HERRERA, a.k.a. Cobra Barrioquatro, a.k.a. Miguel Lardoguri-Gonzales, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-10188.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 15, 2011.
    
    Filed June 29, 2011.
    
      Bridget S. Bade, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Deborah Ann Bigbee, Esquire, Scottsdale, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, 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 Garcia-Herrera appeals from the 50-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for re-entry of removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Garcia-Herrera contends that the district court proeedurally erred (1) by failing to consider his argument that the sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i) lacks an empirical basis or considered rationale and is not an accurate measure of the gravity of the underlying offense; and (2) by failing to explain why it selected his sentence. We review for plain error, see United States v. Dall-nian, 533 F.3d 755, 761 (9th Cir.2008), and affirm because Garcia-Herrera has not established any error by the district court, see id. at 761-62. The record shows that the court heard and considered all of Garcia-Herrera’s arguments and properly explained its rationale for selecting the sentence. See United States v. Amezcua-Vasquez, 567 F.3d 1050, 1053-54 (9th Cir.2009).

Garcia-Herrera also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, the below-Guidelines sentence was not substantively unreasonable. See Unit ed States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108-09 (9th Cir.2010).

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