
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Roberto HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-50076
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 11, 2017 
    
    Filed April 19, 2017
    Jean-Claude Andre, Timothy James Searight, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, DOJ— Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    James H. Locklin, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDCA — Federal Public Defender’s Office (Los Angeles), Los Angeles, 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

Jose Roberto Hernandez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 120-month sentence and 5-year term of supervised release imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine and methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Hernandez contends that the district court procedurally erred by comparing him to a codefendant who, unlike Hernandez, was subject to a statutory mandatory minimum sentence, and by relying on unsupported facts in conducting that comparison. The district court properly considered the sentence imposed on Hernandez’s codefendant, taking into account the sentence the codefendant would have received in the absence of the mandatory minimum. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). Moreover, in light of the undisputed facts contained in the presentence report, the district court’s findings regarding Hernandez’s role in the drug conspiracy were not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1085 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (court may rely on undisputed facts in presentence report at sentencing).

Hernandez also contends that the district court erred by failing to explain its imposition of a five-year term of supervised release. 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 reflects that the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors when selecting the sentence, and the court’s reasons for imposing the supervised release term are apparent from the record. 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.
     