
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric Lamont WILLOUGHBY, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-10424.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 7, 2014.
    
    Filed April 11, 2014.
    Kathryn C. Newman, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, William Ramsey Reed, Assistant U.S., Elizabeth Olson White, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USRE-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Alina Maria Shell, Paul Donovan Riddle, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.-
    Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Eric Lamont Willoughby appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 12-month-and-one-day term of imprisonment and the two-year term of supervised release imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Willoughby contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the mitigating factors and the staleness of one of his supervised release violations. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Willoughby’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The court found that Willoughby violated three conditions of supervised release. The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the statutory sentencing factors and Wil-loughby’s breach of the court’s trust. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1182 (9th Cir.2006).

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