MEMORANDUM **

Erminio Hernandez-Rauda appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 18-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a removed alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

*308 Hernandez-Rauda contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider his mitigating arguments and the 18 U.S.C. § 3558(a) sentencing 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 Hernandez-Rauda’s arguments ' and the applicable section 3553(a) factors, and sufficiently explained the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-92 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Hernandez-Rauda next contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Hernandez-Rauda’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The above-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Hernandez-Rauda’s immigration history and the need for deterrence. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586; see also United States v. Burgos-Ortega, 777 F.3d 1047, 1056-57 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2848, 192 L.Ed.2d 883 (2015) (district court “reasonably concluded” that the need for deterrence outweighed the mitigating factors and “required a sentence at least equal to [the defendant’s] last illegal reentry sentence”).

AFFIRMED.