
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco Miguel Angel NAJERA-GORDILLO, a.k.a. Miguel Angel Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-10006.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
    
    Filed March 5, 2012.
    Mary L. Grad, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Michael D. Anderson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USSAC-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Krista Hart, Law Offices of Krista Hart, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Francisco Miguel Angel Najera-Gordillo appeals from the 324-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § § 846 and 841(a)(1), and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Najera-Gordillo contends that the sentence imposed is substantively unreasonable. The record reflects that the district court considered Najera-Gordillo’s arguments in mitigation and provided a well-reasoned analysis of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, before concluding that a sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range was appropriate. The sentence is substantively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances and in light of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors. 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     