MEMORANDUM **

Alfredo Mendoza-Alvarez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 27-month term of supervised release imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Mendoza-Alvarez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider and explain why a new term of supervised release was warranted in light of U.S.S.G. § 501.1(c) (2011), which directs that a district court ordinarily should not impose a term of supervised release if the defendant is a deportable alien. The record reflects that the district court considered section 5D 1.1(c) and adequately explained why it declined to follow it. Contrary to Mendoza-Alvarez’s contention, no written statement of reasons was required because the district court imposed a term of supervised release within the Guidelines range. See 18 U.S.C. § 3558(c)(2); U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(g)(2); United States v. Valdavinos-Torres, 704 F.3d 679, 693 (9th Cir. 2012) (“no departure analysis is triggered” by the imposition of supervised release because section 5D 1.1(c) is not mandatory).

Mendoza-Alvarez also challenges the term of supervised release as substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a 27-month term of supervised release. See Valdavinos-Torres, 704 F.3d at 692. The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Mendoza-Alvarez’s numerous prior deportations. See id. at 692-93; see also U.S.S.G. § 5Dl.l(c) cmt. n. 5 (district court should consider imposing term of supervised release on deportable alien if it determines supervised release would provide an added measure of deterrence and protection).

AFFIRMED.