Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel Angel GUTIERREZ-AGUILAR, a.k.a. Miguel Gomez, a.k.a. Hugo Gutierrez-Gutierrez, a.k.a. Miguel Gomez-Garcia, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-11-03
Citations: 670 F. App'x 523
Docket Number: No. 15-10506; 15-10507
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel Angel GUTIERREZ-AGUILAR, a.k.a. Miguel Gomez, a.k.a. Hugo Gutierrez-Gutierrez, a.k.a. Miguel Gomez-Garcia, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 670
Pages: 523–523

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel Angel GUTIERREZ-AGUILAR, a.k.a. Miguel Gomez, a.k.a. Hugo Gutierrez-Gutierrez, a.k.a. Miguel Gomez-Garcia, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-10506
15-10507
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted October 25, 2016
Filed November 03, 2016
Ryan P. DeJoe, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Lauren G. LaBuff, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Matthew J. McGuire, Patagonia, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
In these consolidated appeals, Miguel Angel Gutierrez-Aguilar appeals the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the 15-month consecutive sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Gutierrez-Aguilar contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to (1) consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, (2) address his nonfrivo-lous mitigating arguments, and (3) explain the sentence adequately. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The record reflects that the district court considered the section 3553(a) factors and Gutierrez-Aguilar's mitigating arguments, and explained the sentence sufficiently. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 357-59, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Gutierrez-Aguilar also contends that the 61-month aggregate sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The aggregate within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the relevant sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Gutierrez-Aguilar's crijninal and immigration history. See id.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.