dissenting.

I respectfully dissent.

The majority understates the district court’s sentencing analysis in this case and overstates the requirements imposed by 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a). Robles-Ayala contends that his sentence is unreasonable because it does not comply with § 3553(a)’s mandate that the sentence be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary.” He argues that because (1) he has been sufficiently deterred from future crime, (2) his motive for committing the illegal re-entry was to feed his family, and (3) he declared that he will “never come back,” he is entitled to a lesser sentence; yet he fails to offer any evidence that demonstrates that his sentence was greater than necessary.

Robles-Ayala concedes that the district court began with the correct Guidelines Sentence, and the record makes clear that the court considered the § 3553(a) factors. During the sentencing hearing, the district judge stated:

This excerpt makes clear that the district court considered the circumstances of the offense, the tenets of punishment, and the § 3553(a) factors in its ruling. This is all that is required. Indeed, the district court need not specifically address each § 3553(a) factor, “but rather show[] that [it] considered the statutorily-designed factors in imposing a sentence.” United States v. Diaz-Argueta, 447 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir.2006) (quoting United States v. Knows His Gun, 438 F.3d 913, 918 (9th Cir.2006)).

The district court’s statements, in totality, provide a sufficient showing that there was adequate consideration given to all the § 3553(a) factors and that the sentence imposed was reasonable. See Knows His Gun, 438 F.3d at 919 (sufficient consideration was given to the § 3553(a) factors where the district court: (1) stated that a “sentence of 132 months ‘would meet the purpose of sentencing, which is punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation and community protection,’” (2) stated that it “ ‘considered the nature and circumstances of the instant offense’ and imposed a sentence that ‘accurately reflects the seriousness and detrimental effects of the crime,’ ” and (3) viewed the Guidelines as “ ‘useful instruction’ ”.) When district judges give appropriate consideration to all of the § 3553(a) factors, we are not at liberty as appellate judges to second-guess the weighing of those factors — even if we might have given a different sentence. Id.

I would affirm the judgment.