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:T509,MEMORANDUM ** Javier Garcia-Galindo appeals from the 63-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for attempted reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Garcia-Galindo contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain why it disagreed with his arguments for a downward variance under 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a). The record reflects that the district court considered Gareia-Galindo’s arguments in mitigation, but found the circumstances insufficient to warrant a sentence below the Guidelines range. See United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988, 999-1000 (9th Cir.2008). The district court provided an adequate explanation for the sentence imposed, and the sentence is procedurally sound. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). Moreover, the sentence at the low-end of the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) sentencing factors, and under the totality of the circumstances. 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:T524,

MEMORANDUM **

Javier Garcia-Galindo appeals from the 63-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for attempted reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Garcia-Galindo contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain why it disagreed with his arguments for a downward variance under 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a). The record reflects that the district court considered Gareia-Galindo’s arguments in mitigation, but found the circumstances insufficient to warrant a sentence below the Guidelines range. See United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988, 999-1000 (9th Cir.2008). The district court provided an adequate explanation for the sentence imposed, and the sentence is procedurally sound. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). Moreover, the sentence at the low-end of the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) sentencing factors, and under the totality of the circumstances. 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.