
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alfonso CRUZ-GREGORIO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-50087.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
    
    Filed Sept. 24, 2012.
    Steve Miller, Assistant U.S., Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Devin Burstein, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defen-danU-Appellant.
    Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Alfonso Cruz-Gregorio appeals from the 30-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Cruz-Gregorio contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and by failing to explain why a 14-month upward variance was necessary. This contention is without merit as the record reflects that the court reviewed all of the evidence submitted, listened to the mitigating arguments, and considered the section 3553(a) sentencing factors. Furthermore, the court explained that it was basing the sentence on the need to protect the public and afford adequate deterrence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Cruz-Gregorio next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. Under the totality of the circumstances, including Cruz-Gregorio’s criminal history and ten previous deportations, 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     