
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel GUTIERREZ-PADILLA, a.k.a. Ruben Bahena, a.k.a. Miguel Gutierrez Padilla, a.k.a. Miguel Padilla Gutierrez, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-50303.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 25, 2015.
    
    Filed Sept. 1, 2015.
    Susan Leah Park, Assistant U.S., Peter Ko, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
    Russom T. Gebreab, Federal Public Defender, Vincent James Brunkow, Federal Defenders of San Diego, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Miguel Gutierrez-Padilla appeals from the consecutive 18-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Gutierrez-Padilla argues that the district court denied him his right of allocution before sentencing him on his violation of supervised release. The record belies his claim. During a consolidated hearing, the court invited Gutierrez-Padilla to speak before imposing sentence on his new conviction for illegal reentry and his violation of supervised release. Thus, Gutierrez-Padilla was given “an opportunity to make a statement and present any information in mitigation,” Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.1(b)(2)(E), before sentence was imposed. See United States v. Allen, 157 F.3d 661, 666 (9th Cir.1998).

Next, Gutierrez-Padilla alleges that the court failed to calculate his Guidelines range. However, the record shows that the court adopted the correctly-calculated Guidelines range proposed by the probation officer.

Finally, Gutierrez-Padilla contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Gutierrez-Padilla’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The low-end sentence is' substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

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