MEMORANDUM **

Arturo Toscano-Villasenor appeals from the 57-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Toscano-Villasenor contends that the district court erred when it applied a 16-level enhancement, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii), because his prior conviction for inflicting corporal injury on a spouse or co-habitant, in violation of section 273.5 of the California Penal Code, does not qualify as a crime of violence. This contention is foreclosed by United States v. Laurico-Yeno, 590 F.3d 818, 823 (9th Cir. 2010).

Toscano-Villasenor further contends that the district court procedurally erred by treating the Sentencing Guidelines as presumptively reasonable. The record reflects that the district court did not so err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Toscano-Villasenor also contends that the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence that was greater than necessary to fulfill the purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). In light of the totality of the circumstances and the section 3553(a) factors, the sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range is substan *775 tively reasonable. See Carty, 520 F.3d at 993.

AFFIRMED.