MEMORANDUM **

Javier Moya-Alegria appeals from the 33-month sentence imposed following his *648guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(D).

Moya-Alegria contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to adequately explain its reasons for the sentence. This contention is belied by the record. See Hita v. United States, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2468-69, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).

Moya-Alegria also contends that the district court procedurally erred at sentencing by treating the Guidelines as mandatory and by not rendering its decision in a manner that explicitly analyzed the other factors contained in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). However, “[t]he district court need not tick off each of the § 3553(a) factors to show that it has considered them. We assume that district judges know the law and understand their obligation to consider all of the § 3553(a) factors, not just the Guidelines.” United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.