
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darcy PASCHALL, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-50502
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2017 
    
    Filed July 3, 2017
    Benjamin Holley, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Michael Emerson Lasater, Esquire, U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Sandra Hourani, Doug Keller, Attorney, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, 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

Darcy Paschall appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the six-month custodial sentence and 51-month term of supervision imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction. under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Paschall contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to respond to her nonfrivolous argument in favor of leniency. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there was none. The record reflects that the district court considered Paschall’s argument and adequately explained its reasons for imposing the sentence selected. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358-59, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).

Paschall also contends that the 51-month term of supervised release is substantively unreasonable in light of the district court’s willingness to terminate supervision in two years if Paschall remains violation-free. 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 term of supervised release is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Paschall’s history of drug and alcohol abuse. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

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