MEMORANDUM **

Bernardo Balderas appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 18-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Balderas contends that the district court erred by failing to explain its sentence sufficiently in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and to respond adequately to his arguments in mitigation. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 & n. 3 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The record reflects that the court considered Balderas’s arguments in mitigation, and its explanation of the sentence imposed was legally adequate. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93, 995 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Balderas also contends that the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence by giving too much weight to his breach of trust and too little weight to mitigating factors. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Bald-eras’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The consecutive sentence at the low-end of the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the section 3583(e) factors, including the fact that Balderas was convicted of importing methamphetamine while he was on supervised release in connection with a prior conviction for importing marijuana. See U.S.S.G. § 7B 1.3(f); Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586; United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007).

AFFIRMED.