
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Earl LELAND, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-30026
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 14, 2016 
    
    Filed December 21, 2016
    Matthew F. Duggan, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USSP—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Matthew Campbell, Robert R. Fischer, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, FPDWA—Federal Public Defender’s Of- ■ fíce (Eastern WA & ID), Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

John Earl Leland appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the ten-year supervised release term imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(B)(viii), and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Leland contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to calculate the Guidelines range for the supervised release term, and by failing to explain the ten-year term adequately. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and hold that there is none. Even if the court erred, there is no reasonable probability that it would have imposed a different term absent the error. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008). The court considered the parties’ joint recommendation for a five-year supervised term, which is the high end of the Guidelines range, and concluded that it was insufficient. It is clear from the record that the court believed that a ten-year term was necessary in light of Leland’s lengthy criminal history. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (adequate explanation can be inferred from the record).

Leland also contends that the ten-year term of supervised release is substantively unreasonable. The 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 supervised release term is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Leland’s criminal record. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

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