MEMORANDUM

Juan Hernandez-Ortiz, native and citizen of Mexico, appeals his conviction and the sentence imposed for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (a), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hernandez-Ortiz’s motion to substitute appointed counsel. Hernandez-Ortiz provided no explanation for his lack of trust in his attorney, nor could he point to any “striking signs of serious conflict.” United States v. Mendez-Sanchez, 563 F.3d 935, 944 (9th Cir.2009) (quoting United States v. Adelzo-Gonzalez, 268 F.3d 772, 778 (9th Cir.2001)). The record contains no indication that antagonism or hostility on his attorney’s part limited the effectiveness of her representation, and she fully supported Hernandez-Ortiz at the hearing on the motion to substitute. See Adelzo-Gonzalez, 268 F.3d at 779 . Moreover, as the district court properly recognized, a defendant’s “general unreasonableness” does not suffice to show an “irreconcilable conflict.” Mendez-Sanchez, 563 F.3d at 943, 945 (citations omitted). The district court did not conclude that Hernandez-Ortiz’s motion was untimely, and the court’s inquiry was adequate because its “specific and targeted questions” established that Hernandez-Ortiz’s attorney was competent and capable of effectively representing him. Adelzo-Gonzalez, 268 F.3d at 778 .

The district court’s application of an 8-level increase under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(C) was proper because Hernandez-Ortiz’s § 496(a) conviction for receipt of stolen property categorically qualifies as an aggravated felony. See Verdugo-Gonzalez v. Holder, 581 F.3d 1059, 1062 (9th Cir.2009) (“The full range of conduct proscribed by California Penal Code section § 496(a) falls within the generic definition of a theft offense” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(43)(G).).

AFFIRMED.

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