MEMORANDUM **

Jose Pulido-Gonzalez appeals from the 57-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Pulido-Gonzalez contends that the Government’s refusal to offer him a fast-track plea bargain because of his criminal and immigration history violated his constitutional rights. This contention lacks merit because the decision not to offer Pulido-Gonzalez a fast-track plea was within the prosecutor’s discretion, and the district court did not clearly err when it concluded that Pulido-Gonzalez did not meet his burden of establishing a prima facie case of invidious discrimination. See United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464-65, 116 S.Ct. 1480, 134 L.Ed.2d 687 (1996); see also United States v. Estrada-Plata, 57 F.3d 757, 760-61 (9th Cir. 1995).

Pulido-Gonzalez next contends that the district court proeedurally erred and that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court: (1) failed to consider sentencing disparities with other defendants offered fast-track dispositions; and (2) treated the Guidelines as mandatory. The record indicates that the district court did not proeedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-92, 995 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Gonzalez-Zotelo, 556 F.3d 736, 740 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 130 S.Ct. 83, 175 L.Ed.2d 57 (2009). Further, considering the totality of the circumstances, including the 18 U.S.C. *678 § 3553(a) sentencing factors, the sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable. See Carty, 520 F.3d at 993.

AFFIRMED.