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:T4a1,MEMORANDUM Ernesto Soto-Herrera appeals from the 56-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Soto-Herrera contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider the mitigating circumstances pre sented. He also contends that the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. The record indicates that the district court considered the defense’s arguments in the course of determining Soto-Herrera’s sentence and therefore did not procedurally err. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356-59 , 127 S.Ct. 2456 , 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-92, 995 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). Further, considering the totality of the circumstances, including the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) sentencing factors, the district court’s sentence below the middle of the Guidelines range was substantively reasonable. See Carty, 520 F.3d at 993 . AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4ce,

MEMORANDUM

Ernesto Soto-Herrera appeals from the 56-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Soto-Herrera contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider the mitigating circumstances pre sented. He also contends that the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. The record indicates that the district court considered the defense’s arguments in the course of determining Soto-Herrera’s sentence and therefore did not procedurally err. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356-59 , 127 S.Ct. 2456 , 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-92, 995 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). Further, considering the totality of the circumstances, including the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) sentencing factors, the district court’s sentence below the middle of the Guidelines range was substantively reasonable. See Carty, 520 F.3d at 993 .

AFFIRMED.

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