
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alejandro SANCHEZ, a.k.a. Jose Alfredo Jimenez-Manzanares, a.k.a. Fernando Rodriguez-Masas, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-50217.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 14, 2010.
    
    Filed Jan. 5, 2011.
    U.S. Attorneys Office, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Brandon M. Leblanc, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. 
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Alejandro Sanchez appeals from the ten-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Sanchez contends that the district court proeedurally erred by failing to: (1) calculate the advisory Guidelines range; (2) expressly address the relevant factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); and (3) explain the reasons for the sentence imposed. The record reflects that the district court did not proeedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.2010).

Sanchez next contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his mitigating personal circumstances. The record reflects that the ten-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51-52, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

Sanchez last contends that the revocation of supervised release requires impermissible judicial fact-finding that violates Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). As he concedes, this contention is foreclosed by United States v. Huerta-Pimental, 445 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir.2006), and United States v. Santana, 526 F.3d 1257, 1262 (9th Cir.2008).

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