MEMORANDUM **

Enrique Mendoza-Santiago appeals from the 63-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Mendoza-Santiago contends that his sentence is unreasonable under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), because the district court failed to appropriately eon-sider his history and characteristics and the nature and circumstances of the offense under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Upon review, we conclude that the district court reasonably considered the advisory Guidelines and the § 3553(a) factors in imposing the sentence. The record reflects that the district court considered Mendoza-Santiago’s criminal history, his ties to the United States, the nature and circumstances of the offense, and the need for the sentence to afford deterrence and protect the public, and imposed a sentence that was sufficient but no greater than necessary to comply with § 3553(a). See United States v. Plouffe, 445 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 2314, 164 L.Ed.2d 832 (2006).

The district court properly rejected Mendoza-Santiago’s contentions regarding the larger context of United States border enforcement as irrelevant to Mendoza-Santiago’s own conduct, and did not err in considering these contentions insubstantial with regard to § 3553(a). Accordingly, Mendoza-Santiago’s sentence is not unreasonable. See Plouffe, 445 F.3d at 1131.

AFFIRMED.