UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fernando VEGA-SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant, 385 F. App'x 748

MEMORANDUM Francisco Vega-Sanchez appeals from the six-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Vega-Sanehez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to: (1) calculate the advisory Guidelines range; (2) meaningfully consider and address the relevant factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 and 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); and (3) explain the reasons for the sentence imposed. The record reflects that the district court did not procedurally err. See United States v.

Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-95 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 600 F.3d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir.2010) (concluding that there was no plain error where “the district court listened to [defendant’s] arguments, stated that it had reviewed the criteria set forth in § 3553(a), and imposed a sentence within the Guidelines range”). Vega-Sanchez also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his mitigating personal circumstances. The record reflects that the six-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v.

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51-52, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.