UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darryl John DEPASTINO, a.k.a. Darryl J. De Pastino, a.k.a. Darryl Depastino, a.k.a. David A. Depastino, a.k.a. David Allen Depastino, a.k.a. Darryl R. Johnson, a.k.a. Edward Robert Johnson, Defendant-Appellant, 695 F. App'x 268

MEMORANDUM Darryl John Depastino appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 18-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Depastino contends that the district court procedurally erred by relying on unsupported assumptions regarding his methadone usage and its impact on his ability to participate in a residential drug treatment program. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there was none.

Contrary to Depastino’s contention, the court’s factual findings are supported by the record. See United States v. Graf, 610 F.3d 1148, 1167 (9th Cir. 2010) (“A finding is clearly erroneous if it is illogical, implausible, or without support in the record.”). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.