#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio PAMATZ-HUERTA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-30400.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.*

Filed Oct. 4, 2010.

Pamela Jackson Byerly, Office of The U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Matthew Campbell, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM* **

Antonio Pamatz-Huerta appeals from the 77-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being an alien in the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm, but remand to correct the judgment.

Pamatz-Huerta contends that his sentence on the low-end of the advisory Guideline range is both substantively and procedurally unreasonable because it is calculated based on the 16-point crime of violence enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii), that he contends lacks justification, conflicts with the primary purpose of sentencing, and is excessively harsh. To the extent that Pamatz-Huerta challenges the validity of the crime of violence enhancement, his challenge is foreclosed. *See United States v. Ramirez-Garcia,*269 F.3d 945, 947-48 (9th Cir.2001) (“Congress made abundantly clear when it amended the illegal reentry statute (8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)) that it wished to enhance the penalties for aliens with prior convictions in order to deter others.”).

Pamatz-Huerta also contends that the district court procedurally erred by ne*180glecting to meaningfully address his mitigating argument and by failing to explain why a lesser sentence would not have satisfied the parsimony principle. The record reflects that the district court considered the section 3553(a) factors, provided a reasoned explanation for the sentence, and did not otherwise procedurally err. *See United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc); *see also United States v. Diaz-Argueta,*564 F.3d 1047, 1051-52 (9th Cir.2009).

Pamatz-Huerta last contends that his sentence based on the 16-point crime of violence enhancement is substantively unreasonable because it violates the parsimony principle. The record reflects that the 77-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the section 3553(a) factors. *See Gall v. United States, 552*U.S. 38, 51-52, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); *cf. United States v. Amezcua-Vasquez,*567 F.3d 1050, 1055-56 (9th Cir.2009).

In accordance with *United States v. Rivera-Sanchez,*222 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir.2000), we remand the case to the district court with instructions that it delete from the judgment the incorrect reference to section 1326(b). *See United States v. Herrera-Blanco,*232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir.2000) (remanding sua sponte to delete the reference to section 1326(b)).

AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct the judgment.

**

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