MEMORANDUM *

Felipe Daniel Tapia-Romero appeals his sentence and several terms of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm on all but one issue in this memorandum disposition. We address the remaining issue — whether the district court erred by declining to consider, under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the cost to society of a defendant’s term of imprisonment — in an accompanying opinion.

The sentence imposed by the district court was neither proeedurally erroneous nor substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[Ojnly a proeedurally erroneous or substantively unreasonable sentence will be set aside.”). That the district court, after considering all the relevant facts, chose to place more emphasis on Tapia-Romero’s recidivism than on facts that might be interpreted to reflect more favorably on Tapia-Romero merely shows that the court appropriately exercised its discretion. See id. (“The abuse of discretion standard applies to all sentencing decisions .... ”).

*634The district court did not plainly err when it allowed the probation officer to determine Tapia-Romero’s share of the treatment costs. See United States v. Du-pas, 419 F.3d 916, 922-24 (9th Cir. 2005). Finally, the district court did not violate Tapia-Romero’s Fifth Amendment rights when it imposed the reporting requirement. See United States v. Rodriguez-Rodriguez, 441 F.3d 767, 772-73 (9th Cir. 2006).

AFFIRMED.