MEMORANDUM **

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

Constantino-Ornelas contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain the sentence adequately and to address his arguments in mitigation. We *838 review for plain error, United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), and find none. Even if we were to review de novo, we would affirm the district court.' The record reflects that the court took Constantino-Ornelas’s sentencing arguments into consideration and adequately explained the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). The reasons for imposing the sentence, including the seriousness of Con-stantino-Ornelas’s breach of trust and the need to deter, are apparent from the record. - See id. (adequate explanation may be inferred from the record as a whole).

Constantino-Ornelas next contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his alleged motive for the violation and his asserted low risk of recidivism. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Constantino-Ornelas’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 Constantino-Ornelas’s immigration history. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f); Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

AFFIRMED.