
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Stephen E. FARRELL, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 11-30074.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.
    
    Filed Jan. 6, 2012.
    Paulette Lynn Stewart, Assistant U.S., USHE-Offiee of the U.S. Attorney, Helena, MT, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S., USBI-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    David F. Ness, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FDMT-Federal Defenders of Montana, Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Stephen E. Farrell appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed following revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Farrell contends that the district court erred under United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir.2006), and Tapia v. United States, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2382, 180 L.Ed.2d 357 (2011), by improperly basing his sentence on the need for punishment and rehabilitation. This contention is belied by the record.

Farrell also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The 24-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors, particularly the need for the sentence imposed to protect the public and to sanction Farrell for his breach of trust. See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir.2007).

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