
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brandon PAILLET, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-10378
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted August 9, 2016 San Francisco, California
    FILED August 15, 2016
    J. Douglas Wilson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Susan B. Gray, DOJ-USAO, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Gabriela A. Bischof, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Todd M. Borden, FPDCA-Federal Public Defenders Office (San Francisco), San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: GRABER and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges, and LYNN, Chief District Judge.
    
      
      The Honorable Barbara M.G, Lynn, United States Chief District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Defendant Brandon Paillet appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised release and the sentence imposed upon revocation.

1. The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to strike Kenya Ful-cher’s testimony. The record does not show that Defendant was prejudiced or that the government’s untimely disclosure resulted from anything more than mere negligence. See United States v. Dupuy, 760 F.2d 1492, 1497 (9th Cir. 1985) (“[Untimely disclosure does not require striking a witness’s testimony or- calling a mistrial where the defendant is not prejudiced and the untimely disclosure was not willful avoidance and egregious dereliction of the prosecutor’s statutory obligation.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

2. The district court did not plainly err at sentencing by punishing Defendant because of the severity of the criminal conduct underlying the revocation. The sentencing transcript shows that the district court relied primarily on permissible revocation factors, such as Defendant’s criminal history, the need to be able to keep an eye on him to protect the public, and Defendant’s repeated breaches of the court’s trust. See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th Cir. 2007) (noting that “[t]he seriousness of the offense underlying the revocation, though not a focal point of the inquiry, may be considered to a lesser degree as part of the criminal history of the violator”).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     