' MEMORANDUM Zeus Apolo Guzman-Aguilar appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 57-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Guzman-Aguilar first argues that the district court procedurally erred by failing to address his mitigating arguments and discuss its application of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(
a) sentencing factors. 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 addressed Guzman-Aguilar’s arguments and explained that the sentence was appropriate in light of the applicable sentencing factors. See United States v. Amezcua-Vasquez, 567 F.3d 1050, 1053-54 (9th Cir.2009).
Next, Guzman-Aguilar asserts that his sentence is substantively unreasonable, referencing the “alternative” Guidelines range that would have applied had his reentry offense and his recent state drug-trafficking offense been prosecuted together in federal court. We review a claim that a sentence is substantively unreasonable for abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). In light of Guzman-Aguilar’s criminal and immigration history, the court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a low-end sentence of 57 months. See id. AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.