Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Abraham SALAMANCA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-05-11
Citations: 690 F. App'x 994
Docket Number: No. 16-30187
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Abraham SALAMANCA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: REINHARDT, LEAYY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 690
Pages: 994–995

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Abraham SALAMANCA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-30187
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 8, 2017
Filed May 11, 2017
Thomas John Hanlon, Assistant U.S. Attorney, United States Attorney’s Office, Yakima, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Jeremy B. Sporn, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FDWAID — Federal Defenders of Eastern Washington, Yakima, WA, for Defendant-Appellant
Before: REINHARDT, LEAYY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2),

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Abraham Salamanca appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 30-month term of supervised release imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Salamanca contends that his supervised release term is substantively unreasonable in light of his lengthy period of compliance during his prior term of supervised release and because it will not promote his rehabilitation. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The term of supervised release is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Salamanca's repeated violations. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586. Furthermore, contrary to Salamanca's contention, the record reflects that the district court considered only proper sentencing factors. See 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.