MEMORANDUM **

Harry Orlando-Papias appeals from the sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Papias contends that the district court proeedurally erred by not sufficiently explaining his sentence and impermissibly relying primarily upon the need to punish him for the criminal conduct underlying the revocation. These contentions lack merit because the record reflects that the district court listened to the parties’ arguments and adopted probation’s reasoning, which emphasized Papias’ overall criminal history, including the fact that Papias had reoffended eight months after his release from custody. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2007).

Papias further asserts that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the sentence imposed is greater than necessary to further the relevant sentencing goals set forth under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a) and 3583(e). The sentence imposed is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51-52, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

AFFIRMED.