UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. CHRISTOPHER ULIBARRI, Defendant - Appellant. No. 17-2179 (D.C. No. 1:16-CR-00841-MV-1) (D. N.M.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before MATHESON , McKAY , and McHUGH , Circuit Judges. **

________________ _________________ I. BACKGROUND The district court revoked Christopher Ulibarri’s supervised release because it found, after an evidentiary revoc ation hearing, that he had committed a domestic violence crime. For the supervised release violation, it sentenced him to 24 months in prison, the maximum term under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). The court also placed him on supervised release for an additional 10 months after hi s release, and included a special condition regarding his mental health medications.

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judica ta, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consiste nt with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. ** After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not ma terially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### June 6, 2018 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 On appeal, Mr. Ulibarri challenged the sentence as substan tively unreasonable. He also challenged the special condition, arguing it was “vague, overbroad, more restrictive than neces sary, and not medically appropriat e,” Aplt. Br. at 20, and “made no provision for Mr. Ulibarri to get assistance in paying fo r the medication if he is unable to pay for it,” id . at 15. After the appeal was filed and briefed, the following sequence took place: April 5, 2018 - In reference to the special c ondition, we ordered the parties to “show cause in writing why this case should not be remanded for the district court to consider discrepancies between oral statem ents made at sentencing and the written judgment.” Doc. 10548855 at 1. April 18, 2018 - In their joint response, the pa rties agreed that a remand to the district court would be appropriate for that court to conform its written judgment to the oral statements made by the district cour t at sentencing. Doc. 10552237 at 1-2. April 19, 2018 - We “direct[ed] a limited remand fo r the district court to take any action it deems necessary to resolve the disc repancies between its written judgment and the oral statements made at sentencing.” Doc. 10552477 at 1. We also abated the appeal. Id

. May 21, 2018 - The parties submitted a joint stat us report stating that the district court had entered an amended judgment. Doc. 10560507 at 1. The amended judgment contained a revised special cond ition of supervised release th at addressed Mr. Ulibarri’s mental health medications. Id ., attached. May 22, 2018 - We lifted the abatement and or dered the parties to identify the issue(s) on appeal that this court shou ld decide. Doc. 10560737 at 1-2. May 31, 2018 - The parties filed a joint notice advising that “the only remaining issue in this appeal is whether or not Mr. Ulibarri's sentence is substantively unreasonable.” Doc. 10563306 at 1. As a result of the foregoing, the special supervised condition regarding mental health medications is no longer an issue on appeal. The only remaining issue is Mr.3 Ulibarri’s challenge to the substantive reas onableness of his prison sentence. Exercising jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. II. SUBSTANTIVE REASONABLE NESS OF THE SENTENCE The parties agree that the district c ourt correctly calculated the Sentencing Guidelines range for Mr. Ulibarri’s violation of supervised release to be 24 to 30 months and that, under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), the maximum term of imprisonment upon revocation was 24 months. The district court sentenced him to 24 months. A. Substantive Reasonableness A substantive reasonableness sentencing ch allenge asks us to address “whether the length of the sentence is reasonable gi ven all the circumstan ces of the case in light of the factors set fort h in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).” United States v. Verdin–Garcia , 516 F.3d 884, 895 (10th Cir. 2008) (quotations omitted); see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We “review the s ubstantive reasonablene ss of a sentence for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Chavez , 723 F.3d 1226, 1233 (10th Cir. 2013). We find no abuse unless the sentence “is arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or manifestly unreasonable.” United States v. Munoz–Nava , 524 F.3d 1137, 1146 (10th Cir. 2008) (quotations omitted). When, as here, a defendant is sentenced within a properly calculated United States Sentencing Guidelines range, th e sentence “is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness.” United States v. Kristl , 437 F.3d 1050, 1054 (10th Cir. 2006) (quotations omitted) . “The sentencing judge is in a superior position to find facts and judge their import under § 3553(a) in the individual case.” Gall , 5524 U.S. at 51 (quotations omit ted). “The judge sees a nd hears the evidence, makes credibility determinations, has full knowle dge of the facts and gains insights not conveyed by the record.” Id. (quotations omitted). B. The Parties’ Arguments Both sides only briefly addressed th e substantive reas onableness issue. Mr. Ulibarri argues that his sentence was unreasonable because it is longer than his original sentence for a felon in possession o ffense under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and did not account for how his mental health condition contributed to his supervised release violation. He also contends the district court did not explain why the length of the sentence was necessa ry. Aplt. Br. at 24-25. The Government argues that the dist rict court considered the violent circumstances of his supervis ed release violation and th e § 3553(a) factors. It contends we must defer to the relative wei ght that the district court gave to Mr. Ulibarri’s mental health c ondition and his threat to the community. Aplee. Br. at 25- 26. In his reply brief, Mr. Ulibarri faults th e district court for fa iling to explain its rationale for the 24-month sentence. Reply Br. at 12-13. C. Analysis The district court sentenced Mr. Ulibarri to the lo w end of the Guidelines range. His sentence is therefore entitle d to a presumption of reasonableness. See Kristl , 437 F.3d at 1054. At the sentencing pha se of the revocation hearing, the district court said that it had “considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. [§]5 3553(a)(1)-(7).” ROA Vol. 2, at 62. Mr. Ulibarri’s complaint that his revocation sentence was greater than the sentence for his underlying offense does not account for the undisputed Guidelines range of 24 to 30 months for the supervised release violation. His criticism that the cour t gave insufficient weight to his mental health condition is unavailing. First, the court paid considerable attention to Mr. Ulibarri’s mental health issues in fashioning th e special supervised release conditions, id. at 63- 65, and addressed them in its coll oquy with him about the sentence, id. at 69. Second, on review for substantive reasona bleness, this cour t does not second-guess “the weight a district cour t assigns to various § 3553(a) factors” or “its ultimate assessment of the balance between them.” United States v. Smart, 518 F.3d 800, 808 (10th Cir. 2008); see United States v. Lewis , 625 F.3d 1224, 1233 (10th Cir. 2010). Finally, Mr. Ulibarri’s argument that the district court failed to explain the length of the sentence goes not to the subs tantive reasonableness of the sentence but instead to its procedural reas onableness, an argument he di d not preserve in district court, see Gall , 552 U.S. at 51 (failing to explain a sentence is a procedural error); United States v. Pena-Hermosillo , 522 F.3d 1108, 1116 (10th Cir. 2008), and has waived because he does not argue for plain error on appeal; United States v. DeRusse , 859 F.3d 1232, 1236 n.1 (10th Cir. 2017) (failure to raise procedural reasonableness in district court or argue pl ain error on appeal wa ives the issue).6 Mr. Ulibarri is unable to overcome th e presumption that his sentence was substantively reasonable and, therefore, the district cour t did not abuse its discretion in imposing the 24-month sentence. III. CONCLUSION We affirm Mr. Ulibarri’s 24-month prison sentence for his violation of supervised release.

Entered for the Court

Scott M. Matheson, Jr. Circuit Judge