
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alfredo RAMIREZ-ESQUIVEL, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-50118
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted August 16, 2016 
    
    FILED August 22, 2016
    Helen H, Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Nicole Ries Fox, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Carson Porter Baucher, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. . See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Alfredo Ramirez-Esquivel appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 12-month sentence imposed following his third revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Ramirez-Esquivel contends that the district court procedurally erred by imposing an above-Guidelines sentence without explaining why a within-Guidelines sentence was insufficient or acknowledging that the sentence exceeded the Guidelines range. He also argues that the court procedurally erred by failing to address his arguments that his anxiety prevented him from complying with his supervised release conditions and that a short sentence was warranted so that he could accept a job promotion that had been offered to him. Ramirez-Esquivel’s arguments are without merit. The district court correctly calculated the Guidelines range as 3-9 months, but explained that a 12-month sentence was warranted, despite the mitigating arguments asserted by Ramirez-Esquivel, in light of the severity of Ramirez-Esquivel’s breach of the court’s trust. The court adequately responded to Ramirez-Esquivel’s mitigating arguments and sufficiently explained the above-Guidelines sentence. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 357-58, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).

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