
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Chelsea D. EDWARDS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-30127
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2017 
    
    Filed March 14, 2017
    Nancy D. Cook, Office of the U.S. Attorney, U.S. Courthouse, Coeur d’Alene, ID, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    John Stephen Roberts, Jr., FPDWA— Federal Public Defender’s Office (Eastern WA & ID), Spokane, WA, for Defendant Appellant
    Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Chelsea D. Edwards 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.

Edwards contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain the sentence adequately, justify its upward variance from the Guidelines range, and respond to her mitigating arguments. We review for plain error, see United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), and hold that there is none. The record reflects that the district court considered Edwards’s arguments for a mid-range sentence and sufficiently explained its reasons for the above-Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Edwards next claims that her sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The above-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Edwards’s extensive criminal history and her repeated breaches of the court’s trust. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586; United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     