MEMORANDUM **

Miguel Angel Hernandez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the sentence of 12 months and one day imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Hernandez contends that the district court erred by failing to explain the sentence and its reasons for rejecting his mitigating arguments. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The record reflects that the district court considered all of Hernandez’s arguments and adequately explained the sentence to permit meaningful appellate review. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93, 995 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, the sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007) (upon revocation, a district court may sanction the defendant for his breach of the court’s trust)

AFFIRMED.