
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus Sanchez LOPEZ, a.k.a. Tomas Molina Acosta, a.k.a. Acosta Tomas-Molina, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-50190.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 11, 2013.
    
    Filed Feb. 13, 2013.
    Curtis Arthur Kin, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Kristen Anne Williams, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Mark Eibert, Esquire, Half Moon Bay, CA, Jesus Sanchez Lopez, Adelanto, CA, pro se, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jesus Sanchez Lopez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 70-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being an illegal alien found in the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Sanchez Lopez contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because (i) it creates an unwarranted sentencing disparity between his sentence and the sentences imposed on defendants with similar criminal histories prosecuted under the fast-track program, and (ii) it does not reflect his mitigating circumstances and motivation for returning to the United States. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Sanchez Lopez’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). We have held that sentencing disparities that result from the fast-track program are not unwarranted and, as such, do not violate 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). See United States v. Marcial-Santiago, 447 F.3d 715, 718-19 (9th Cir.2006). Moreover, in light of the section 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Sanchez Lopez’s criminal history and immigration violations, the sentence at the bottom of the advisory Guidelines range is substantively reasonable. 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     