MEMORANDUM **

Charles Joseph Reevis appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 41-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon in Indian Country, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153(a) and 113(a)(3). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Reevis contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain adequately the sentence and by failing to respond to his sentencing arguments. 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 considered Reevis’s arguments and sufficiently explained the sentence. United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). The record further belies Reevis’s contention that the district court presumed that the Guidelines were reasonable.

Reevis next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of *513 the mitigating factors and because he did not receive custody credit for time spent in tribal custody. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Reevis’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the seriousness of the offense and the need to protect the public. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586; see also United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.”).

AFFIRMED.