
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Octavio VARGAS-GUZMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-50569.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 15, 2016.
    
    Filed March 21, 2016.
    Peter Ko, Carlos Arguello, II, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Kent Young, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Octavio Vargas-Guzman appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 14-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Vargas-Guzman contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain the sentence sufficiently and respond to his mitigating argument that he entered the United States to care for his family during an emergency. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.2010), and find none. The record reflects that the district court responded to Vargas-Guzman’s mitigating argument and adequately explained the sentence. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358-59, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).

Vargas-Guzman also contends that the sentence is substantively, unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Vargas-Guzman’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality ,of the circumstances, including Vargas-Guzman’s criminal and immigration history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586; United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir.2007).

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