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:T480,MEMORANDUM Rodrigo Escalante-Carrillo appeals from the 57-month sentence imposed following his conviction for re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Escalante-Carrillo contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing adequately to discuss the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) sentencing factors. The record reflects that contrary to his contention, the district court did not plainly err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Lindsey, 634 F.3d 541, 550 (9th Cir.2011). Escalante-Carrillo also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. Specifically, he contends that cultural assimilation provides a basis for a below-Guidelines sentence. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the section 3553(a) sentencing factors, the sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 , 128 S.Ct. 586 , 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4b2,

MEMORANDUM

Rodrigo Escalante-Carrillo appeals from the 57-month sentence imposed following his conviction for re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Escalante-Carrillo contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing adequately to discuss the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) sentencing factors. The record reflects that contrary to his contention, the district court did not plainly err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Lindsey, 634 F.3d 541, 550 (9th Cir.2011).

Escalante-Carrillo also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. Specifically, he contends that cultural assimilation provides a basis for a below-Guidelines sentence. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the section 3553(a) sentencing factors, the sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 , 128 S.Ct. 586 , 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

AFFIRMED.

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