
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ruben Anthony GOMEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-10451.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 14, 2013.
    
    Filed Aug. 19, 2013.
    Raquel Arellano, USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    PAUL BATES, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ruben Anthony Gomez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 18-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Gomez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and by failing to explain adequately the reasons for imposing an 18-month sentence. We review for plain error, see United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir.2006), and find none. The record reflects that the district court considered the section 3583(e) sentencing factors, and adequately explained why an above-Guidelines sentence was warranted.

Gomez also contends that the victim who addressed the court at the disposition hearing was only a “secondary victim” of Gomez’s underlying offense because he suffered no financial loss, that he should not have been permitted to address the court, and that the government should have disclosed that he suffered no financial loss. These contentions are unavailing. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(4) and (e) (any person directly and proximately harmed by the commission of a federal crime is a crime victim who may address the district court in a supervised release proceeding). Furthermore, the record reflects that the district court was aware that the testifying victim suffered no financial loss.

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