
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roberto Hernandez GUZMAN, aka Jesus Delgado, aka Jesus Rodolfo Salas Delgado, aka Regino Delgado, aka Rodolfo Salas Delgado, aka Jose Marin Fregoso, aka Jesus Lucas, aka Martin Hernandez Morales, aka Jesus Rodolfo Salas, aka Jesus Rodolfo Lucas Salas, aka Rodolfo Jesus Salas, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-50529.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Oct. 11, 2013.
    Filed Nov. 1, 2013.
    Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S., Christina T. Shay, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Gia Kim, Esquire, Deputy Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Libby, Esquire, Deputy Federal Public Defender, FPDCA-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: PREGERSON and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges, and SIMON, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Michael H. Simon, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Roberto Hernandez Guzman appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to a single count of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, illegal reentry. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Because the arguments Guzman now raises on appeal were not first raised in district court, we review for plain error. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b); United States v. Ellsworth, 456 F.3d 1146, 1152 (9th Cir.2006).

We conclude that the district court committed no error at all. In calculating separately Guzman’s sentence for a probation violation and Guzman’s sentence for a new offense, the district court properly followed controlling authority. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2, cmt. n. 11; United States v. Palmer, 946 F.2d 97, 99 (9th Cir.1991). The district court did not err in awarding Guzman separate criminal history points for sentences imposed on different days. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(2); see also United States v. Gonzalez, 739 F.3d 420, 421-23, 2013 WL 4792952, at *1 (9th Cir.2013).

Guzman’s contention that the district court erred in finding that he committed the instant offense while under a criminal justice sentence is unsupported by the record.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     