
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javier MORENO-MENDOZA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-50100.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 8, 2012.
    
    Filed Aug. 15, 2012.
    Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S. Michael J. Heyman Office of the U.S. Attorney San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jennifer Lynn Coon, Law Office of Jennifer L. Coon, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Javier Moreno-Mendoza appeals from the 6-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Moreno-Mendoza contends that the district court procedurally erred because it failed to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors, failed to consider his arguments in mitigation, and failed adequately to explain his sentence. The district court listened to Moreno-Mendoza’s mitigating arguments and then imposed a below-Guidelines sentence. It did not plainly err. See United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.2010).

Moreno-Mendoza also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to properly consider the sentencing factors. The below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the section 3583(e) sentencing factors. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

Moreno-Mendoza’s contention that section 3583(e)(3) is unconstitutional is foreclosed by United States v. Santana, 526 F.3d 1257, 1262 (9th Cir.2008).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
     