
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis CASTILLO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-50278
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 11, 2017 
    
    Filed April 18, 2017
    Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Melanie K. Pierson, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, Colin M. McDonald, Assistant U.S. Attorney, US Department of Justice, Southern District of California, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Richard Dale Rome, Attorney, Law Offices of Richard D. Rome, Van Nuys, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

José Luis Castillo appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 12-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Castillo contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The high-end sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Castillo’s multiple violations of supervised release. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586. Moreover, contrary to Castillo’s contention, the record reflects that the district court considered his mitigating arguments and sufficiently explained the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). To the extent that Castillo claims that the district court improperly considered the entire petition to revoke, rather than solely the admitted allegation, he cannot establish plain error. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761-62 (9th Cir. 2008). His counsel stipulated that the court could consider the entire petition.

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