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:T49c,MEMORANDUM Julio Gonzalez-Zamudio appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 57-month sentence .imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Gonzalez-Zamudio contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of (i) the age of his prior conviction, which triggered a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A); (ii) his history and circumstances; and (iii) the fact that he was sentenced to 27 months for a prior illegal reentry. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Gonzalez-Zamudio’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 , 128 S.Ct. 586 , 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Gonzalez-Zamudio’s criminal and immigration history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51 , 128 S.Ct. 586 . AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4c9,

MEMORANDUM

Julio Gonzalez-Zamudio appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 57-month sentence .imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Gonzalez-Zamudio contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of (i) the age of his prior conviction, which triggered a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A); (ii) his history and circumstances; and (iii) the fact that he was sentenced to 27 months for a prior illegal reentry. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Gonzalez-Zamudio’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 , 128 S.Ct. 586 , 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Gonzalez-Zamudio’s criminal and immigration history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51 , 128 S.Ct. 586 .

AFFIRMED.

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