MEMORANDUM **

Kimberly Crawford appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 11-month sentence imposed upon revo *717 cation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Crawford contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain adequately its reasons for rejecting her sentencing arguments. We review for plain error, see United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), and find none. The record reflects that the court considered Crawford’s arguments and sufficiently explained the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Crawford next contends that her sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of her history of addiction and her rehabilitative efforts. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Crawford’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 Crawford’s multiple violations of supervised release and the need to afford adequate deterrence. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

AFFIRMED.