
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Heather Wisby STEWART, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-30270.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 7, 2014.
    
    Filed April 11, 2014.
    Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S., USBI— Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, Ryan George Weldon, Assistant U.S., USGF—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Robert Henry Branom, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, FDMT—Federal Defenders of Montana, Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. 
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Heather Wisby Stewart appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 15-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Stewart contends that her sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary and because the district court placed an undue emphasis on the circumstances of her arrest. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Stewart’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The 15-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Stewart’s breach of the court’s trust and the need to deter future criminal conduct. See id.; United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1182 (9th Cir.2006).

We reject Stewart’s contention that the district court improperly considered a post-arrest statement that was elicited from her in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). The record reflects that the district court expressly disregarded the statement in fashioning the sentence.

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