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:T473,MEMORANDUM Baldomero Valdez-Casteneda appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 41-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Prior to filing an answering brief, the government filed a motion for limited remand. Because the government does not allege that the district court committed any error, we deny the government’s motion. Valdez-Casteneda asserts various claims of procedural error. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.2010), and find none. The record reflects that the court did not treat the Guidelines as mandatory, adequately considered the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and Val-dezr-Casteneda’s variance arguments, and sufficiently explained the sentence to permit appellate review. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93, 995 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4a5,

MEMORANDUM

Baldomero Valdez-Casteneda appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 41-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Prior to filing an answering brief, the government filed a motion for limited remand. Because the government does not allege that the district court committed any error, we deny the government’s motion.

Valdez-Casteneda asserts various claims of procedural error. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.2010), and find none. The record reflects that the court did not treat the Guidelines as mandatory, adequately considered the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and Val-dezr-Casteneda’s variance arguments, and sufficiently explained the sentence to permit appellate review. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93, 995 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.

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