
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric Michael HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-10402
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2017
    
    Filed July 3, 2017
    Jared Grimmer, Patrick Michael Walsh, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USLV—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, William Ramsey Reed, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Elizabeth Olson White, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USRE—Office of the US Attorney-Reno, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Wendi L. Overmyer, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Brenda Weksler, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant -
    Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Eric Michael Harris appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 12-month term of supervised release imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Harris contends that he is not amenable to supervised release due to his inability to adhere to mental health treatment and medication, and consequently, the district court abused its discretion by imposing continued supervision as part of his supervised release revocation sentence. The 12-month term of supervised release is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(c) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the need to rehabilitate Harris and protect the public. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Harris’s argument that he is unamenable to supervision does not render the sentence substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Hurt, 345 F.3d 1033, 1036 (9th Cir. 2003) (“A violation of the conditions of supervised release does not obviate the need for further supervision, but rather confirms the judgment that supervision was necessary.”).

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