
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Michael SALAZAR, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 16-50351, 16-50352
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 11, 2017 
    
    Filed July 17, 2017
    Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Matthew O’Brien, Attorney, DOJ—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Nadine Hettle, Gia Kim, Esquire, Deputy Federal Public Defender, FPDCA—• Federal Public Defender’s Office (Los An-geles), Los Angeles, CA, 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

In these consolidated appeals, Robert Michael Salazar appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 20-month concurrent sentences imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Salazar contends that the district court procedurally erred by relying on facts not supported by the record in imposing an above-Guidelines sentence, and by failing to explain the sentence adequately. 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, does not support Salazar’s argument that when imposing the sentence, the district court relied on an assumption that Salazar was driving under the influence. Rather, the record reflects that the district court considered Salazar’s history of drug use, which was well documented in the record, and sufficiently explained its determination that an above-Guidelines sentence was warranted. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     