
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Curtis BAKER, a.k.a. Middleman, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-50070.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 17, 2012.
    
    Filed Jan. 24, 2012.
    Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Julie J. Shemitz, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Antoine F. Raphael, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Riverside, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Becky Walker James, Esquire, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Curtis Baker appeals from the 24-month prison sentence and three-year term of supervised release imposed following the revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Baker contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court impermissibly focused on the seriousness of his underlying drug conviction and did not consider his various mitigating factors. These contentions fail. The district court considered the proper factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), and, under the totality of circumstances, the sentence is reasonable. See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir.2007) (“[A] district court may properly look to and consider the conduct underlying the revocation as one of many acts contributing to the severity of the violator’s breach of trust so as not to preclude a full review of the violator’s history and the violator’s likelihood of repeating that history.”).

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