
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Manuel DE LA TORREVENTURA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-50397.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 13, 2015.
    
    Filed May 18, 2015.
    Christopher Alexander, Assistant U.S., Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Kristi A. Hughes, Gregory Thomas Murphy, Esquire, Trial, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Manuel De La Torre-Ventura appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 18-month sentence imposed upon revocation of probation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

De La Torre-Ventura contends that the district court imposed an above-Guidelines sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, namely, an assumption that he drove without a license or insurance and that he still had an alcohol problem and was a danger to the public. We agree that the record does not support the district court’s suggestion that De La Torre-Ventura did not have insurance or a license at the time he was pulled over for a traffic violation. However, the court did not impose sentence on this basis. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). Furthermore, the court’s concern over De La Torre-Ventura’s alcohol problem and propensity of recidivism was supported by his history of driving under the influence.

De La Torre-Ventura next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing De La Torre-Ventura’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The 18-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light the of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586; 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.
     