MEMORANDUM ***

Walter Vicente-Gonzalez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 37-month sentence for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Vicente-Gonzalez contends that his plea was not entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily because he did not understand the nature and range of possible sentences. We review the voluntariness of a plea de novo. See United States v. Gaither, 245 F.3d 1064, 1068 (9th Cir. 2001). The record reflects that although Vicente-Gonzalez disliked the range of possible sentences he was facing, his plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.

Vicente-Gonzalez also contends that the district court should have departed downward to account for his cultural assimilation. Our review of departures is limited to determining whether the district court imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. See United States v. Vasquez-Cruz, 692 F.3d 1001, 1008 (9th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 76, 187 L.Ed.2d 60 (2013). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445. (2007).

AFFIRMED.