
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bartolo RODRIGUEZ-CORONADO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-10555.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 24, 2013.
    
    Filed Oct. 2, 2013.
    Jeffrey Daniel Martino, Assistant U.S., USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Matthew Harrison Green, Esquire, Law Offices of Matthew H. Green, Tucson, AZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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

Rodriguez-Coronado contends that the district court erred by ordering his revocation sentence to run consecutively to his sentence for illegal reentry. He argues that U.S.S.G. § 5Dl.l(e) creates a presumption that the court impose a concurrent sentence when a deportable alien is sentenced for violating supervised release. We disagree. Section 5D 1.1(c) concerns the imposition of a term of supervised release, not the sentence to be imposed upon revocation. See U.S.S.G. § 5D 1.1(c) (2011). Contrary to Rodriguez-Coronado’s argument, the Guidelines recommend that the court impose a consecutive sentence for a supervised release violation. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f).

Rodriguez-Coronado next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it creates unwarranted sentencing disparities. Contrary to his claim, Rodriguez-Castro is not similarly situated to defendants who are not serving terms of supervised release. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Rodriguez-Coronado’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 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors, the consecutive sentence is substantively reasonable. See id.

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