MEMORANDUM

Lorenzo Grado-Meza appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 36-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a removed 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.

Grado-Meza contends that the district court procedurally erred by (1) “triple- counting” Grado-Meza’s prior convictions, (2) focusing exclusively on deterrence and protection of the public, and (3) failing to explain adequately its reasons for rejecting Grado-Meza’s mitigating arguments and imposing the above-Guidelines sentence. These contentions fail. The court did not err by varying upward based on Grado-Meza’s criminal history. See United States v. Christensen, 732 F.3d 1094, 1100-01 (9th Cir.2013) (court may vary upward based on factors already incorporated into the Guidelines calculations). Moreover, the record reflects that the court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) factors and sufficiently explained the reasons for imposing the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

Grado-Meza also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Grado-Meza’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 , 128 S.Ct. 586 , 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The above-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Grado-Meza’s criminal and immigration history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51 , 128 S.Ct. 586 ; see also United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir.2009) (“The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.”).

AFFIRMED.

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