
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mohammed SIDDIQUEE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-50332.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 14, 2010.
    Ronald Loh-Chi Cheng, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Adam Axelrad, Esquire, Law Offices of Adam Axelrad, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Mohammed Siddiquee, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    Before: CANBY, THOMAS, 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

Mohammed Siddiquee appeals from the 30-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted trafficking in counterfeit goods, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2320(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Siddiquee contends that the district court procedurally erred at sentencing by failing to consider and properly weigh the relevant factors and circumstances under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The record reflects that the district court considered all of the statutory sentencing factors and did not procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

Siddiquee also contends that the sentence imposed is substantively unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances, the sentence, which was at the bottom of the Guidelines range, is substantively reasonable. See id. at 993; see also United States v. Rivera, 527 F.3d 891, 912 (9th Cir.2008) (concluding that the circumstances did not compel a lower sentence because the district court had properly weighed and considered the parties’ arguments and the relevant sentencing factors, including the fact that the appellant would likely deported after serving his sentence).

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