MEMORANDUM

In these consolidated appeals, Sergio Ochoa-Torres appeals from the 13-month sentence and three-year term of supervised release imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 ; and the 12-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Ochoa-Torres contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain sufficiently why it imposed a three-year term of supervised release. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.2010), and find none. Ochoa-Torres has not shown a reasonable probability that he would have received a different sentence had the court given a more detailed explanation of the sentence. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir.2008).

Ochoa-Torres further contends that the three-year term of supervised release is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing supervised release. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 , 128 S.Ct. 586 , 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The imposition of supervised release was substantively reasonable in light of Ochoa-Torres’s extensive criminal history, which included multiple immigration offenses. See id.; see also U.S.S.G. § 5D 1.1 cmt. n. 5 (district court should consider imposing term of supervised release on deportable alien if it determines supervised release would provide an added measure of deterrence and protection).

Ochoa-Torres next contends that he was denied his right of allocution under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(4)(A)(ii). The record belies Ochoa-Torres’s contention. The district court stated its tentative sentencing decision, but then permitted Ochoa-Torres to allocute before imposing the final sentence. See United States v. Laverne, 963 F.2d 235, 237-38 (9th Cir.1992).

Ochoa-Torres finally contends that the district procedurally erred by failing to explain sufficiently the 12-month revocation sentence. We review for plain error, see Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d at 1108 , and find none. The district gave a sufficient explanation for the revocation sentence.

AFFIRMED.

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