MEMORANDUM **

Melissa Jimenez appeals from the 12-month sentence imposed following the revocation of her supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Jimenez contends that the district court procedurally erred because it failed to explain its reasons for imposing an above-Guidelines sentence. She also contends that her sentence is substantively unreasonable because the sentence is longer *542 than necessary. Jimenez’s contentions are not supported by the record. The district court did not procedurally err, and Jimenez’s sentence is reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Jimenez last contends that 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) is unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). As she concedes, this contention is foreclosed by United States v. Huerta-Pimental, 445 F.3d 1220, 1223-25 (9th Cir. 2006), and United States v. Santana, 526 F.3d 1257, 1262 (9th Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED.