
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Justo BARAJONA-AVILA, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 10-30361.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 27, 2011.
    
    Filed Oct. 3, 2011.
    Kirk Alan Engdall, Assistant U.S., United States Attorney’s Office, Eugene, OR, Kelly A. Zusman, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Mark Bennett Weintraub, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDOR-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Eugene, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN, 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

Justo Barajona-Avila appeals from the 77-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Barajona-Avila contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is based on a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b) which lacks any empirical basis, and is grossly disproportionate to sentencing enhancements for more serious offenses. He further contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his individual circumstances. The sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3558(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, particularly given Barajona-Avila’s multiple prior deportations and criminal history. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc); United States v. Ramirez-Garcia, 269 F.3d 945, 947 (9th Cir.2001) (holding that U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b) properly implements Congress’ intent “to enhance the penalties for aliens with prior convictions in order to deter others[ ]” by increasing the “sentencing range for aliens with prior convictions[ ]”).

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