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:T441,MEMORANDUM Francisco Ledesma-Aceves appeals from the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being an alien in the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Ledesma-Aceves contends that the district court erred at sentencing by failing to consider his arguments, and that the overall sentence is unreasonable in light of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a). The record reflects that the district court considered each of Ledesma-Aceves’ arguments at sentencing, and properly considered the § 3553(a) factors in deciding whether they supported the sentence suggested by Ledesma. Accordingly, there was no procedural error. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). Moreover, in light of the totality of the circumstances, the sentence imposed is not substantively unreasonable. See id. at 993 . AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T46e,

MEMORANDUM

Francisco Ledesma-Aceves appeals from the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being an alien in the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Ledesma-Aceves contends that the district court erred at sentencing by failing to consider his arguments, and that the overall sentence is unreasonable in light of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a). The record reflects that the district court considered each of Ledesma-Aceves’ arguments at sentencing, and properly considered the § 3553(a) factors in deciding whether they supported the sentence suggested by Ledesma. Accordingly, there was no procedural error. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). Moreover, in light of the totality of the circumstances, the sentence imposed is not substantively unreasonable. See id. at 993 .

AFFIRMED.

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