
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis FRANCESCHY-ROBLES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-50342.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 29, 2010.
    
    Filed July 22, 2010.
    Joseph Orabona, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    William Winfield Brown, Esquire, Brown & Associates, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Luis France schy-Rob les appeals from the 77-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1826. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Franceschy-Robles contends that the district court procedurally erred at sentencing by failing to consider his arguments in support of a lower sentence. The record reflects that the district court adequately considered Franceschy-Robles’ arguments and did not procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

Franceschy-Robles also contends that the within-Guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the nature of the offense and because the Guidelines range is based on a 16-level enhancement that did not account for the nature of Franceschy-Robles’ conduct in the underlying convictions. In light of the totality of the circumstances, the sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable. See id. at 993.

Finally, Franceschy-Robles contends that the district court exhibited judicial bias against him, in violation of his due process rights, when it compared his prior conviction for attempted murder with a state case over which the district judge had previously presided. This contention lacks merit because Franceschy-Robles “has not demonstrated that his right to an impartial tribunal was violated by the court’s remarks at sentencing.” See Lang v. Callahan, 788 F.2d 1416, 1418-19 (9th Cir.1986).

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