Hernandez

*554 MEMORANDUM **

Abisai Mesa Hernandez appeals from the the district court’s determination, following this court’s remand pursuant to United States v. Moreno-Hernandez, 419 F.3d 906, 916 (9th Cir.2005), that it would not have imposed a materially different sentence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Hernandez contends that, on remand, the district court applied the Sentencing Guidelines in a mandatoi’y fashion and failed to consider the other factors contained in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a). However, the record shows that the district court “properly understood the full scope of [its] discretion in a post-Booker world.” See United States v. Combs, 470 F.3d 1294, 1297 (9th Cir.2006).

In addition, Hernandez asserts that the district court’s consideration of the statutory mandatory minimum resulted in a lack of an individualized sentencing determination that violated his due process rights. This contention, however, is foreclosed. See United States v. Labrada-Bustamante, 428 F.3d 1252, 1265 (9th Cir. 2005) (noting that this court has repeatedly rejected constitutional challenges to mandatory minimum sentencing statutes); see also United States v.…