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:T458,MEMORANDUM In these consolidated appeals, Mario Rodriguez-Maldonado appeals from the district court’s judgments and challenges the 24-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 , and the 18-month, partially concurrent sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Rodriguez-Maldonado contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to provide a sufficient explanation for the sentences imposed, including its reasons for rejecting his arguments in favor of a lower sentence. We review for plain error, see United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir.2006), and find none. The record demonstrates that the court heard Rodriguez-Maldonado’s arguments in mitigation, and its explanation of the sentence was adequate. 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:T485,

MEMORANDUM

In these consolidated appeals, Mario Rodriguez-Maldonado appeals from the district court’s judgments and challenges the 24-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 , and the 18-month, partially concurrent sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Rodriguez-Maldonado contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to provide a sufficient explanation for the sentences imposed, including its reasons for rejecting his arguments in favor of a lower sentence. We review for plain error, see United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir.2006), and find none. The record demonstrates that the court heard Rodriguez-Maldonado’s arguments in mitigation, and its explanation of the sentence was adequate. 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.