MEMORANDUM **

Charles Edward Jackson appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 96-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Jackson contends that his sentence 25 months above the high end of the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range is illegal and substantively unreasonable. We review the legality of a sentence de novo, see United States v. Fernandes, 636 F.3d 1254, 1255 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam), and the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion, see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Jackson’s 96-month sentence, which is two years below the applicable statutory maximum, is both legally authorized and substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of circumstances, including Jackson’s extensive history of violence and gun-related offenses. See id.

To the extent that Jackson argues that the government breached the parties’ plea agreement by advocating for a sentence above the Sentencing Guidelines range, we decline to consider this argument because it was raised for the first time in Jackson’s reply brief. See United States v. Mejia-Pimental, 477 F.3d 1100, 1105 n. 9 (9th Cir. 2007).

AFFIRMED.