
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Jose GALLEGOS-LOPEZ, a.k.a. Juan Jose Gallegos, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-10067
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted February 14, 2017 
    
    Filed February 27, 2017
    Robert Lally Miskell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USTU—Office of the US Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Peter Hormel, Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Peter Hormel, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Juan Jose Gallegos-Lopez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 24-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Gallegos-Lopez contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his cultural assimilation and other mitigating factors, as well as the then-proposed amendments to the illegal reentry guidelines. The court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Gallegos-Lopez’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Gallegos-Lopez’s criminal history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

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