
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Armando LARA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-50375
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2017 
    
    Filed July 3, 2017
    Adam Lome Braverman, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Ajay Krishnamurthy, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Amrutha N. Jindal, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Armando Lara appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 12-month sentence imposed upon the revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Lara contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to use the Guidelines range as a starting point for its sentencing determination and by failing to explain its sentencing decision adequately. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The record reflects that the court correctly calculated the Guidelines range and used that range as the starting point and initial benchmark. See Molina-Martinez v. United States, — U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 1338, 1345, 194 L.Ed.2d 444 (2016). Moreover, the record shows that the court considered Lara’s mitigating arguments and sufficiently explained its reasons for imposing the 12-month sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Lara next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Lara’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The above-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Lara’s repeated breaches of the court’s trust. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586; United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th Cir. 2007).

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