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:T4b3,MEMORANDUM Lucio Mora-Tarula appeals from the 72-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in viola tion of 8 U.S.C. § 1826 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Mora-Tarula argues that the district court procedurally erred in failing to explain the sentence adequately and failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors. We review for plain error, see United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761 (9th Cir.2008), and affirm because Mora-Tarula has not established plain error by the district court, much less that his substantial rights may have been affected, see id. at 761-62 . Mora-Tarula also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a), the below-Guidelines sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 , 128 S.Ct. 586 , 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108-09 (9th Cir.2010). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4ea,

MEMORANDUM

Lucio Mora-Tarula appeals from the 72-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in viola tion of 8 U.S.C. § 1826 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Mora-Tarula argues that the district court procedurally erred in failing to explain the sentence adequately and failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors.

We review for plain error, see United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761 (9th Cir.2008), and affirm because Mora-Tarula has not established plain error by the district court, much less that his substantial rights may have been affected, see id. at 761-62 .

Mora-Tarula also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a), the below-Guidelines sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 , 128 S.Ct. 586 , 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108-09 (9th Cir.2010).

AFFIRMED.

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