Ramirez-Medina

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Ramirez-Medina appeals from the 12-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Ramirez-Medina contends that the district court erred at sentencing by improperly relying upon factors not included in 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (e), and that the resulting sentence is unreasonable. We conclude that the district court did not err, see United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir.2007), and that the sentence is substantively reasonable, see United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

Ramirez-Medina next contends that his sentence violates Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), because the sentence was not supported by facts alleged in an indictment or proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. This contention fails. See United States v. Huertar-Pimental, 445 F.3d 1220, 1221 (9th Cir.2006).

AFFIRMED.

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