
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tanisha PHELPS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-30205
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 11, 2017 
    
    Filed July 17, 2017
    Jack Haycock, 'Assistant U.S. Attorney, USPO—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Poca-tello, ID, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Matthew Kinghorn, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defenders Eastern Washington and Idaho, Pocatello, ID, Melissa D. Winberg, Federal Defender Services of Idaho, Boise, ID, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Tanisha Phelps appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Phelps contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain the sentence and by failing to consider the sentencing factors. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The record reflects that the district court considered the sentencing factors and thoroughly explained its reasons for imposing the above-Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Phelps next contends that her sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the minor nature of her violation. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Phelps’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The above-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the need to afford adequate deterrence and to protect the public. 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.
     