MEMORANDUM **

Alejandro Sanchez appeals from the ten-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Sanchez contends that the district court proeedurally erred by failing to: (1) calculate the advisory Guidelines range; (2) expressly address the relevant factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); and (3) explain the reasons for the sentence imposed. The record reflects that the district court did not proeedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010).

Sanchez next contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his mitigating personal circumstances. The record reflects that the ten-month sentence 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).

Sanchez last contends that the revocation of supervised release requires impermissible judicial fact-finding that violates Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). As he concedes, this contention is foreclosed by United States v. Huerta-Pimental, 445 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2006), and United States v. Santana, 526 F.3d 1257, 1262 (9th Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED.