MEMORANDUM
Kerry P. Rutherford appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 54-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for access device fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(2); and aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Rutherford contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider his history and characteristics and by failing to explain adequately the sentence imposed. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.2010), and find none. The district court satisfied its obligations under 18 U.S.C. § 3553 by considering the evidence and arguments before imposing a sentence at the low end of the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358-59, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.