MEMORANDUM **

Martin Celestino Morales-Gumecindo appeals from the district court’s judgment *691 and challenges the 41-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Morales-Gumecindo contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider the proposed amendments to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 at sentencing. This claim fails. See United States v. Ruiz-Apolonio, 657 F.3d 907, 917 (9th Cir. 2011) ( [<£W]here an amendment has been promulgated but has not yet been adopted, district courts are not required to consider that amendment in the § 3553 analysis ...”).

Morales-Gumecindo next argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. He contends that the 16-level enhancement he received for his prior offense resulted in a Guidelines range that was unreasonable. The court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Morales-Gumecin-do. 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 section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Morales-Gumecindo’s criminal history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

AFFIRMED.