MEMORANDUM **

Ignacio Valdivia-Marquez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 70-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana on board a vessel subject to United States jurisdiction and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2; 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(2)(G); and 46 U.S.C. § 70503(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Valdivia-Marquez contends that the district court procedurally erred by focusing on general deterrence to the exclusion of the other 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and failing to consider and explain its rejection of his mitigating 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 court properly considered the section 3553(a) factors and Valdivia-Marquez’s mitigating arguments, and sufficiently explained the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Valdivia-Marquez next contends that the alleged procedural errors resulted in a substantively unreasonable sentence. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Valdivia-Marquez’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) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586; 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.”).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.