
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tiere SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-50287.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 7, 2014.
    
    Filed April 14, 2014.
    Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S., Evan John Davis, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Kurt J. Mayer, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, 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

Tiere Smith appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Smith contends that the district court violated his right to due process by basing the sentence on misleading and unreliable information regarding his prior federal sentence. We review for plain error, United States v. Vanderwerfhorst, 576 F.3d 929, 934 (9th Cir.2009), and find none. The record reflects that the district court sentenced Smith consistent with the requirements of due process. See id. at 935-36 (to establish due process violation at sentencing, defendant must show that his sentence was “demonstrably” based on information that lacked “some minimal indi-cium of reliability beyond mere allegation”) (internal quotations omitted). The district court did not rely on false or unreliable information when it referred to Smith’s previous sentence as “lenient,” and it properly based the sentence on Smith’s continuing pattern of criminal conduct, failure to be deterred, danger to the community, and breach of the court’s trust. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1182 (9th Cir.2006).

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