
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Enrique ALDAY-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-10334.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
    
    Filed March 9, 2011.
    Krissa Marie Lanham, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Daniel L. Kaplan, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDAZ-Federal Public Defender’s Office Phoenix, AZ, for Defendan1>-Appellant.
    Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Enrique Alday-Lopez appeals from the district court’s order revoking his supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Alday-Lopez contends that the district court erred under United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir.2006), by improperly considering the need for punishment. This contention is belied by the record.

Alday-Lopez also contends that the district court erred by providing an insufficiently compelling justification for the sentence. The district court did not commit procedural error. See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th Cir.2007) (noting that deterrence is one consideration under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(B) and holding that “[t]he seriousness of the offense underlying the revocation, though not a focal point of the inquiry, may be considered to a lesser degree as part of the criminal history of the violator”). Moreover, in light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors applicable under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), the sentence is substantively reasonable. See Miqbel, 444 F.3d at 1181-82 (explaining the factors to consider under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)).

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