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:T51e,MEMORANDUM Juan Miguel Menchaco-Lopez appeals from the 36-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Menchaco-Lopez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to address his policy challenge to the illegal reentry Guideline requiring a sixteen-level enhancement for certain prior convictions, and that the sentence imposed is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not procedurally err, as the record reflects that it considered Menchaco-Lopez’s arguments before imposing a sentence that was 21 months below the advisory Guidelines range, and found the circumstances insufficient to justify a sentence lower than the one imposed. See United States v. Ayalar-Nicanor, 659 F.3d 744, 752-53 (9th Cir.2011). Further, the sentence below the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances and in light of the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a). 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T54b,

MEMORANDUM

Juan Miguel Menchaco-Lopez appeals from the 36-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Menchaco-Lopez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to address his policy challenge to the illegal reentry Guideline requiring a sixteen-level enhancement for certain prior convictions, and that the sentence imposed is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not procedurally err, as the record reflects that it considered Menchaco-Lopez’s arguments before imposing a sentence that was 21 months below the advisory Guidelines range, and found the circumstances insufficient to justify a sentence lower than the one imposed. See United States v. Ayalar-Nicanor, 659 F.3d 744, 752-53 (9th Cir.2011). Further, the sentence below the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances and in light of the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a). 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.