MEMORANDUM **

Ponciano Diaz-Sosa appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 12-month sentence imposed on revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Diaz-Sosa contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to pronounce the Guidelines range prior to imposing the sentence. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. Diaz-Sosa has not shown a reasonable probability that he would have received a different sentence had the district court reiterated the applicable Guidelines range immediately before pronouncing the below-Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008).

Diaz-Sosa also contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to address his mitigation arguments. The record shows the district court heard Diaz- *719 Sosa’s mitigation arguments and sufficiently explained the sentence. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358-59, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).

AFFIRMED.