MEMORANDUM **

In these consolidated appeals, Miguel Angel Gutierrez-Aguilar appeals the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the 15-month consecutive sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Gutierrez-Aguilar contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to (1) consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, (2) address his nonfrivo-lous mitigating arguments, and (3) explain the sentence adequately. 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 the section 3553(a) factors and Gutierrez-Aguilar’s mitigating arguments, and explained the sentence sufficiently. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 357-59, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Gutierrez-Aguilar also contends that the 61-month aggregate sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion. 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 relevant sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Gutierrez-Aguilar’s crijninal and immigration history. See id.

AFFIRMED.