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:T44b,MEMORANDUM Rudy Remberto Orozco appeals from the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found unlawfully in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Orozco contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable under United States v. Amezcuctr-Vasquez, 567 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir.2009), because the sentence does not adequately account for the age of his prior conviction, the nature of the conduct underlying that conviction, or the nature of his subsequent criminal history. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a), 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); see also United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1109 (9th Cir.2010) (emphasizing the limited scope of the holding in Amezcua-Vasquez). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T478,

MEMORANDUM

Rudy Remberto Orozco appeals from the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found unlawfully in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Orozco contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable under United States v. Amezcuctr-Vasquez, 567 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir.2009), because the sentence does not adequately account for the age of his prior conviction, the nature of the conduct underlying that conviction, or the nature of his subsequent criminal history. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a), 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); see also United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1109 (9th Cir.2010) (emphasizing the limited scope of the holding in Amezcua-Vasquez).

AFFIRMED.

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