NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        APR 14 2020
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 19-10280

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 3:18-cr-08359-JJT-1

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
EFRAIN RIVERA-IBARRA, AKA Efrain
Rivera,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Arizona
                     John J. Tuchi, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted April 7, 2020**

Before:      TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

      Efrain Rivera-Ibarra appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 60-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).
      Rivera-Ibarra contends that the 60-month sentence is substantively

unreasonable. He argues that the district court overemphasized his criminal

history, disregarded the need to avoid sentencing disparities, and was unduly

influenced by a Guidelines range that, in light of the 2016 amendments to U.S.S.G.

§ 2L1.2, was “inappropriately distorted” for a defendant like Rivera-Ibarra who did

not have “serious” prior offenses. The district court recognized that a within-

Guidelines sentence was not warranted in this case and granted a significant

downward variance of 32 months from the low end of the Guidelines range. This

was not an abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 

, 51 (2007).

District courts have discretion as to how to weigh the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

sentencing factors, see United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 

, 908 (9th

Cir. 2009), and the below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light

of those factors and the totality of circumstances, including Rivera-Ibarra’s

criminal history and prior immigration conviction. See 

.

      AFFIRMED.




                                          2                                     19-10280