UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stephen FARRELL, Defendant-Appellant, 401 F. App'x 296

MEMORANDUM Stephen Farrell appeals from the ten-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Farrell contends that the district court erred by considering impermissible factors at sentencing. The record shows that the district court did not rely on impermissible factors “as a primary basis for [the] revocation sentence.” United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1182 (9th Cir.2006). Farrell also contends that the sentence imposed is substantively unreasonable.

In light of the totality of the circumstances, the sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.