MEMORANDUM **

Stanley Joseph Squetimkin appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 20-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Squetimkin contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to indicate which of the six alleged violations it found him to have committed and why it did not impose a lesser sentence. He argues that these failures caused the sentencing explanation to be so inadequate as to impede appellate review. Because Squetimkin did not raise this objection in the district court, we review for plain error. See United States v. Hammons, 558 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir. 2009). We find none. The record reflects that the district court found that Squetimkin committed all six alleged violations and provided a reasoned explanation for the sentence that was sufficient to permit meaningful appellate review. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Squetimkin also contends that the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Sque-timkin’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Squetimkin’s history on supervision and the need to protect the public. See id.

AFFIRMED.