MEMORANDUM **

Anthony D. Swanegan appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

*656 Swanegan contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explicitly calculate the Sentencing Guidelines range, and by improperly relying on punishment during sentencing. Swanegan has not shown that the district court’s failure to expressly calculate the Guidelines range affected his substantial rights, particularly where the probation officer correctly calculated the Guidelines range and the district court provided sufficient reasons for the sentence. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761 (9th Cir. 2008). Further, taken in context, the district court’s reference to “punishment” properly concerned sanctions for Swanegan’s supervised release violations, not for the underlying state crimes. See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2007).

AFFIRMED.