
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sanxay XAYADETH, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-30083
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2017 
    
    Filed March 14, 2017
    Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Stephen P. Hobbs, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, Thomas Merton Woods, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-Offiee of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Vanessa Pai-Thompson, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDWA—Federal Public Defender’s Office, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant
    
      Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sanxay Xayadeth appeals from the district court’s judgement and challenges the 94-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession of a stolen firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(j). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The district court held a joint sentencing hearing for the instant criminal conviction and Xayadeth’s violation of supervised release. At the hearing, the district court determined that an aggregate 94-month sentence was warranted, which was composed of a 57-month sentence for the criminal conviction and a consecutive low-end 37-month sentence for the supervised release violation. Without objection from Xayadeth, however, the district court elected to impose the 94-month sentence for the criminal conviction and dismiss the supervised release violation.

Xayadeth contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain adequately the 37-month portion of the sentence that the court said reflected the supervised release violation. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude there is none. The record reflects that the court sufficiently explained its sentencing determination. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Xayadeth next contends that his 94-month sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Xayadeth’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Xayadeth’s significant criminal history. 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.
     