
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Rodrigo ESCALANTE-CARRILLO, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 09-10406.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 27, 2011.
    
    Filed Oct. 5, 2011.
    Leta M. Hollon, Assistant U.S., USPX-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Kurt Michael Altman, Kurt M. Altman, P.L.C. Attorney at Law, Scottsdale, AZ, 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

Rodrigo Escalante-Carrillo appeals from the 57-month sentence imposed following his conviction for re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Escalante-Carrillo contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing adequately to discuss the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. The record reflects that contrary to his contention, the district court did not plainly err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Lindsey, 634 F.3d 541, 550 (9th Cir.2011).

Escalante-Carrillo also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. Specifically, he contends that cultural assimilation provides a basis for a below-Guidelines sentence. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the section 3553(a) sentencing factors, the 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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     