MEMORANDUM **

Juan Molina-Cruz appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the *671 48-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Molina-Cruz contends that the district court procedurally erred by (i) relying on an improper sentencing factor and failing to consider all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, (ii) failing to consider his mitigating arguments, and (iii) failing to explain the need for the sentence imposed. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The record reflects that the district court properly considered the' section 3553(a) sentencing factors and Molina-Cruz’s mitigating arguments, did not consider any improper sentencing factors, and adequately explained the sentence imposed. See United States v. Perez-Perez, 512 F.3d 514, 516-17 (9th Cir. 2008).

Molina-Cruz also contends that the district court erred by not awarding him a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3El.l(a). The district court did not clearly err in determining that Molina-Cruz did not qualify for this reduction. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 cmt. n. 2; United States v. Martinez-Martinez, 369 F.3d 1076, 1088-90 (9th Cir. 2004).

Molina-Cruz further contends that the procedural errors rendered his sentence substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Molina-Cruz’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) sen-tenting factors and the totality of the circumstances. See id.

AFFIRMED.