MEMORANDUM **

Kiet Dinh Ngo appeals the sentence imposed upon revocation of his five-year term of supervised release, arising from his guilty-plea conviction for bank fraud. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742, and we affirm.

Ngo contends that the district court erred by failing to state on the record its reasons for including a 47-month term of *109supervised release as part of the sentence imposed. We disagree. The district court was required to state “its general reasons for its imposition of the particular sentence[.]” See United States v. Lockard, 910 F.2d 542, 546 (9th Cir. 1990); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c). The district court met this requirement by discussing Ngo’s need for post-release substance abuse treatment and his demonstrated potential for recidivism. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(c); United States v. Cervantes-Valenzuela, 931 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.