MEMORANDUM **
Francis R. Casildo appeals from the district courts judgment and challenges the 235-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), (C) and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Casildo contends that the district court abused its discretion by placing undue weight on the need for deterrence to the exclusion of the other 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the need to protect the public and the seriousness of the offense. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586; see also United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.”). Moreover, contrary to Casildos contention, the record reflects that the district court considered all of the § 3553(a) factors and thoroughly explained its decision to impose the 235-month sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (“The district court need not tick off each of the § 3553(a) factors to show that it has considered them.”).
AFFIRMED.