MEMORANDUM **

Michael Kern Wentz appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the nine-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Wentz contends that the district court did not give an adequate explanation for the sentence. The record does not support this claim. The court explained that the sentence was based upon the need to sanction Wentz’s repeated use of a controlled substance in violation of the terms of his supervised release.

Wentz also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Wentz’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Wentz’s breach of the court’s trust. See id.; United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007).

AFFIRMED.