
    UNITED STATES of America, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Victor Manuel VILLALOBOS-ESTRADA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-50208.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 14, 2015.
    
    Filed Oct. 19, 2015.
    Peter Ko, Assistant U.S., Steve Miller, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner-Appellee.
    Harini P. Raghupathi, Esquire, Federal Defenders of San Diego, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Victor Manuel Villalobos-Estrada appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 12-month prison sentence and two-year term of supervised release imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

First, Villalobos-Estrada argues that the district court failed ■ to consider the “parsimony principle” under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). This argument is unpersuasive. The court’s description of the 12-month sentence as “reasonable” was based on its analysis of the statutory sentencing factors, which reflect the parsimony principle.

Next, Villalobos-Estrada asserts that the district court erred by basing the sentence on the costs associated with prosecution. We disagree. Notwithstanding the court’s passing reference to judicial resources while discussing whether Villalo-bos-Estrada could relocate his family to Mexico, the record reflects that the court based the sentence on the statutory sentencing factors, including the need to deter.

Finally, Villalobos-Estrada argues that both his prison term and his term of supervised release are substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Both the prison term and the period of supervised release are substantively reasonable in light of the relevant sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See id.; United States v. Castro-Verdugo, 750 F.3d 1065, 1072 (9th Cir.2014).

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