
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Julio Amilcar CASTELLANOS-SALAMANCA, a.k.a. Julio Castellanos, a.k.a. Julio Anilber Castellanos, a.k.a. Criseldo Lopez, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-50005.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 22, 2015.
    
    Filed June 26, 2015.
    Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S., Daniel H. Malvin, Esquire, Special Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Michael T. Drake, Research and Writing, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2);
    
   MEMORANDUM

Julio Amilcar Castellanos-Salamanca appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 14-month custodial sentence and 22-month term of supervised release imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Castellanos-Salamanca contends that the district court procedurally erred in several ways. We review for plain error, see United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir.2006), and find none. Contrary to Castellanos-Salamanca’s contention, the record reflects that the court properly used the advisory Guidelines range as an initial benchmark for the custodial sentence and kept the range in mind throughout the sentencing process. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). To the extent that the court failed to explicitly calculate the advisory Guidelines range for the term of supervised release, Castellanos-Sala-manca has not shown a reasonable probability that he would have received a different sentence absent the alleged error. See United States v. Christensen, 732 F.3d 1094, 1101-02 (9th Cir.2013). The record further reflects that the court applied the correct sentencing standard, properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors, did not consider any improper sentencing factors, and sufficiently explained its reasons for imposing the sentence. See Carty, 520 F.3d at 991-92. Finally, we reject Castellanos-Salamanca’s contention that the court erred by relying on the probation officer’s statements regarding his criminal history because, insofar as the court considered those statements, Castel-lanos-Salamanca has not shown that they were clearly erroneous. See Christensen, 732 F.3d at 1103.

Castellanos-Salamanca next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the alleged procedural errors, the nature of his violation, and the mitigating circumstances. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Castellanos-Salamanca’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The custodial sentence and term of supervised release are substantively reasonable in light of the section 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Castellanos-Salamanca’s significant criminal history, his breach of the court’s trust, and the need to protect the public. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586; see also U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 cmt. n. 5.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid- ■ ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     