*668 MEMORANDUM **

Juan Manual Ibarra-Hernandez appeals from the 21-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Ibarra-Hernandez first contends that the district court procedurally erred by refusing to consider his pending illegal reentry charge and by failing to explain why it rejected his mitigating arguments. We review for plain error, see United States v. Hammons, 558 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir. 2009), and find none. The district court considered all of Ibarra-Hernandez’s mitigating arguments and adequately explained why it did not find them persuasive. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Ibarra-Hernandez also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The record reflects that the bottom-of-the-Guideline sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51-52, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1182 (9th Cir. 2006) (at a revocation sentencing, the district court can sanction a violator for his breach of trust).

AFFIRMED.