22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T459,MEMORANDUM Martin Vasquez Hernandez appeals from the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported 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. Vasquez Hernandez contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to accomplish the statutory purposes of sentencing when considered in light of the mitigating factors that he presented. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) sentencing factors, Vasquez Hernandez’s below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 , 128 S.Ct. 586 , 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). Moreover, the district court did not proeedurally err. See United States v. Ressam, 593 F.3d 1095, 1116 (9th Cir.2010); see also Carty, 520 F.3d at 991-93 . AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T486,

MEMORANDUM

Martin Vasquez Hernandez appeals from the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported 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.

Vasquez Hernandez contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to accomplish the statutory purposes of sentencing when considered in light of the mitigating factors that he presented. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) sentencing factors, Vasquez Hernandez’s below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 , 128 S.Ct. 586 , 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). Moreover, the district court did not proeedurally err. See United States v. Ressam, 593 F.3d 1095, 1116 (9th Cir.2010); see also Carty, 520 F.3d at 991-93 .

AFFIRMED.

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