
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel Angel TRUJILLO-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-50259
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 11, 2017 
    
    Filed April 20, 2017
    Rosario Torres Gonzalez, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Mark R. Rehe, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    
      Joshua J. Jones, Attorney, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Ápp. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Miguel Angel Trujillo-Rodriguez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 30-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a removed alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Trujillo-Rodriguez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain its reasons for rejecting his argument for a below-Guidelines sentence in light of the then-pending amendment to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. Trujillo-Rodriguez argued at length in his sentencing memorandum and during the sentencing hearing that he should receive a lower sentence because, under the amendment that would take effect just a few months after his sentencing, he would be subject to a lower Guidelines range. The record reflects that the court considered these arguments, but did not believe that they supported a downward variance. Rather, the court explained that a mid-range sentence was warranted in light of the Í8 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of Trujillo-Rodriguez’s offense and his prior crime. While the court might have said more, its failure to do so in this case did not affect Trujillo-Rodriguez’s substantial rights. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     