MEMORANDUM **

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

Acevedo-Becerra contends that the district court erred by failing to consider all 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 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The record reflects that the court considered Acevedo-Becer-ra’s arguments in mitigation, and its explanation of the sentence imposed was adequate. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93, 995 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, the below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007).

Acevedo-Becerra also contends that the imposition of a custodial sentence upon revocation of supervised release violates Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). As he concedes, this contention is foreclosed. See United States v. Santana, 526 F.3d 1257, 1262 (9th Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED.