NOT FOR PUBLICATION

                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                           FILED
                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                            DEC 13 2013

                                                                          MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                            U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 13-10082

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 4:12-cr-01096-CKJ-
                                                 LAB-1
  v.

SIXTO GOMEZ-BAUTISTA,                            MEMORANDUM*

               Defendant - Appellant.


                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Arizona
                    Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted October 23, 2013**

Before:        HUG, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

       Sixto Gomez-Bautista appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 36-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for

re-entry after deportation, 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      Gomez-Bautista contends that his 36-month sentence, which is well below

the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range, is substantively unreasonable. We

review for abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 

, 51 (2007).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the 36-month sentence.

The sentence is not substantively unreasonable in light of the totality of the

circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including not only the

appellant’s reasons for re-entering the country, but also the appellant’s criminal

history and the need for the sentence to provide deterrence. See id.; see also

United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 

, 908-09 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding

that district court did not place undue weight on need for deterrence where

defendant repeatedly entered the United States illegally); United States v. Higuera-

Llamos, 

, 1211-12 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that increased sentence

was substantively reasonable given the defendant’s prior immigration offenses and

the failure of previous sentences to deter him from re-offending).

      AFFIRMED.




                                          2