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:T4c8,MEMORANDUM Alejandro Arturo Scholz appeals from the 210-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea convictions for sexual exploitation of children, receipt of child pornography, and possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251 (a) & (b), 2252(a)(2), and 2252A(a)(5)(B). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Scholz contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) sentencing factors, the top-of-the-Guidelines sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 , 128 S.Ct. 586 , 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Contrary to Scholz’s contention, the record reflects that the district court did not rely on his need for rehabilitation to impose or lengthen his period of confinement. See Tapia v. United States, — U.S.-, -, 131 S.Ct. 2382, 2392 , 180 L.Ed.2d 357 (2011) (“A court commits no error by discussing the opportunities for rehabilitation within prison or the benefits of specific treatment or training programs.”). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4fa,

MEMORANDUM

Alejandro Arturo Scholz appeals from the 210-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea convictions for sexual exploitation of children, receipt of child pornography, and possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251 (a) & (b), 2252(a)(2), and 2252A(a)(5)(B). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Scholz contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) sentencing factors, the top-of-the-Guidelines sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 , 128 S.Ct. 586 , 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

Contrary to Scholz’s contention, the record reflects that the district court did not rely on his need for rehabilitation to impose or lengthen his period of confinement. See Tapia v. United States, — U.S.-, -, 131 S.Ct. 2382, 2392 , 180 L.Ed.2d 357 (2011) (“A court commits no error by discussing the opportunities for rehabilitation within prison or the benefits of specific treatment or training programs.”).

AFFIRMED.

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