MEMORANDUM***

Nhan Le Tran (“Tran”) appeals from his post-Booker resentencing. We affirm.

Although Tran argues that the district court failed to consider the relevant mitigating factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the record reveals that the court was both aware of its discretion to consider these additional factors, and did consid*675er and was “moved” by them. However, in weighing these mitigating factors against the seriousness of the crime and the circumstances of the offense — factors the court is also obligated to consider under § 3553(a) — the court ultimately found the mitigating factors did not justify a shorter sentence.1 It is therefore apparent that the district court did adequately consider the factors set forth in § 3553(a); it simply did not weigh them in the manner Tran would have preferred. Cf. United States v. Carty, 453 F.3d 1214 (9th Cir. 2006); see also United States v. Norman Knows His Gun, 438 F.3d 913, 918 (9th Cir. 2006).

Tran does not allege that the district court erred in calculating his sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines. Thus, we review Tran’s post-Booker sentence for “reasonableness.” See United States v. Mix, 457 F.3d 906, 2006 WL 2268636 *4 (9th Cir. 2006). In light of the seriousness of Tran’s crimes and his leadership role in those offenses, his sentence of 272 months is not unreasonable.

AFFIRMED.