MEMORANDUM **

Carlos Ramos-Sanchez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 14-month consecutive sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Ramos-Sanchez first contends that the district court erred by failing to (i) independently calculate the Sentencing Guidelines range, (ii) consider the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, other than deterrence, and (iii) explain adequately the sentence imposed. We disagree. The record reflects that the district court adopted the correctly-calculated Guidelines range provided by the probation officer, adequately considered the applicable section 3553(a) sentencing factors, and sufficiently explained the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Ramos-Sanchez also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Ramos-Sanchez’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The 14-month consecutive sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f); Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

AFFIRMED.