*1 Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

Juan Godinez-Martinez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 18-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 *2 under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Godinez-Martinez contends that the district court erred by rejecting the parties’ binding plea agreement. We review the district court’s decision to reject a plea agreement for abuse of discretion. See In re Morgan v. U.S. District Court , 506 F.3d 705, 708 (9th Cir. 2007). The district court acted within its discretion in rejecting the plea agreement in light of individualized reasons provided by the court. See id. at 711-12.

Godinez-Martinez next contends that the district court erred by departing upward under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 to account for the inadequacy of his criminal history category. We review the decision to depart under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 not for procedural correctness but rather by determining whether the ultimate sentence was reasonable. See United States v. Ellis , 641 F.3d 411, 421-22 (9th Cir. 2011). The 18-month, above-Guidelines sentence was substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Godinez-Martinez’s significant criminal and immigration history. See Gall v. United States , 522 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

AFFIRMED.

2 16-10285

[*] 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).