
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel SALINAS-VARGAS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-50557.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 18, 2013.
    
    Filed June 24, 2013.
    Carla Jean Bressler, Assistant U.S., Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jennifer Lynn Coon, Law Office of Jennifer L. Coon, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, 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

Daniel Salinas-Vargas appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the eight-month sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Salinas-Vargas contends that the revocation sentence was substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to weigh properly the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Salinas-Vargas’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). In light of the totality of the circumstances and the section 3583(e) sentencing factors, the below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. See id.; United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir.2009) (“The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.”).

Salinas-Vargas also contends that the supervised release revocation procedure under section 3583 violates Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). As he concedes, this contention is foreclosed by United States v. Santana, 526 F.3d 1257, 1262 (9th Cir.2008), and United States v. Huerta-Pimental, 445 F.3d 1220, 1223-25 (9th Cir.2006).

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