
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus CASTANEDA-CEJA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-10370
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2016 
    
    FILED May 31, 2016
    William Ramsey Reed, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Elizabeth Olson White, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USRE — Office of the US Attorney-Reno, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Ramon Acosta, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDNV — Federal Public Defender’s Office, Michael J. Kennedy, Esquire, Federal Public Defender, Law Offices of Michael Jerome Kennedy, PLLC, Reno, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: REINHARDT, 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

Jesus Castaneda-Ceja appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 18-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Castaneda-Ceja contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his age, the nonviolent nature of his violation, and the fact that he was already punished for the conduct underlying the revocation. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Castaneda-Ceja’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The 18-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Castaneda-Ceja’s criminal and immigration history and his breach of the court’s trust. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586; United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2007) (breaching the court’s trust by violating supervised release is a “separately and distinctly offensive” act warranting a sentence consecutive to that imposed for new criminal conduct).

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