MEMORANDUM **

In these consolidated appeals, Jose Esteban Quintero-Sanchez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 30-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the consecutive 18-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Quintero-Sanchez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider and discuss his sentencing arguments and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. 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 Quintero-Sanchez’s arguments and the applicable section 3553(a) factors, and sufficiently explained the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Quintero-Sanchez next contends that the sentence.is substantively unreasonable because the district court allegedly focused on a stale criminal conviction and failed to account for the mitigating factors. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Quintero-Sanchez’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The aggregate within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Quintero-Sanchez’s criminal and immigration history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

AFFIRMED.