
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fernando RUIZ-GUZMAN, a.k.a. Gerardo Torres Ruiz-Guzman, a.k.a. Gerardo Torres-Guzman, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-30172
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 11, 2017 
    
    Filed July 17, 2017
    Laurel Jane Holland, Assistant U.S. Attorney, United States Attorney’s Office, Yakima, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    John Stephen Roberts, Jr., FPDWA— Federal Public Defender’s Office (Eastern WA & ID), Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Fernando Ruiz-Guzman appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 19-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Ruiz-Guzman contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the 41-month sentence he received for the criminal offense underlying the revocation and other mitigating factors. 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 sentence, which was ordered to run consecutively to the 41-month sentence, is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Ruiz-Guzman’s criminal history. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f) (term of imprisonment imposed upon the revocation of supervised release shall run consecutively to sentence defendant is already serving); United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[T]he -violator should be punished both for breaching the court’s trust and for the new criminal conduct, as each act is separately and distinctly offensive.”). Contrary to Ruiz-Guzman’s contention, the court’s discussion of his criminal history was proper, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(1), 3583(e), and did not reflect any reliance on unad-mitted conduct.

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