NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 23 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 20-10315

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.

4:19-cr-02595-DCB-LCK-1 v. JOAQUIN ANTONIO ALVARADO, MEMORANDUM*

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 19, 2021** Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Joaquin Antonio Alvarado appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 37-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.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Alvarado first contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to (1) consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and (2) explain the sentence adequately, including the court’s reasons for rejecting his request for a downward departure or variance. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia- Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The district court’s explanation for the sentence, though brief, reflects that the court considered the § 3553(a) factors and Alvarado’s arguments, and concluded that a within-Guidelines sentence was justified by Alvarado’s criminal and immigration history. The court was not required to do more. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (district court is not required to “tick off” the § 3553(a) factors to show that it has considered them and provides an adequate explanation as long as it is sufficient “to permit meaningful appellate review”).

Alvarado next contends that the 37-month sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the district court’s alleged procedural errors and because his particular circumstances justified a downward departure or variance. The court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). In light of the § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, the sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

AFFIRMED.

2 20-10315