
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Salvador ORDONEZ-MALDONADO, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 09-30083, 09-30084.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 7, 2009.
    
    Filed Dec. 18, 2009.
    
      Kory Larsen, Special Assistant U.S., USGF-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Evangelo Arvanetes, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FDMT-Federal Defenders of Montana, Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: FARRIS, D.W. NELSON, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Appellant Salvador Ordonez-Maldonado appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to suppress, the sentence the district court imposed for Ordonez-Maldo-nado’s drug offense, and the sentence the district court imposed after revoking Ordo-nez-Maldonado’s term of supervised released. Because the district court did not clearly err in finding that police searched Ordonez-Maldonado’s apartment after receiving a warrant — rather than before, as Ordonez-Maldonado claims — and because both sentences are reasonable, we affirm.

We review factual findings underlying a district court’s decision to deny a motion to suppress for clear error. United States v. Elliott, 322 F.3d 710, 714 (9th Cir.2003). We review sentencing decisions for abuse of discretion and “may not reverse just because we think a different sentence is appropriate.” United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). “[Ojnly a proeedurally erroneous or substantively unreasonable sentence will be set aside.” Id. The sentence imposed after revocation of a term of supervised release is likewise reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Verduzco, 330 F.3d 1182, 1184 (9th Cir.2003).

The district court did not clearly err in finding that police searched Ordo-nez-Maldonado’s apartment after they obtained a warrant authorizing them to do so. Evidence introduced below, including testimony from three independent witnesses and computerized police dispatch records, adequately supports the district court’s factual findings adopting the government’s timeline of events. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Ordonez-Maldonado’s motion to suppress.

We also hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Ordonez-Maldonado. Ordonez-Maldona-do does not dispute that the district court correctly calculated the guideline range for both sentences, and sentenced Ordonez-Maldonado within or below that range in both instances. The record also reflects that the district court permitted Ordonez-Maldonado to argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and understood that the guideline range is not presumptively reasonable. The record further reflects that the court selected the sentences it imposed based on the particular facts of this case, including Ordonez-Maldonado’s extensive criminal history, and provided a reasoned explanation for its decision. Nothing in the record suggests that Ordo-nez-Maldonado received an erroneous or unreasonable sentence. Carty, 520 F.3d at 991-92. Therefore, we affirm both sentences.

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