MEMORANDUM **

Jorge Castillejo Hunosta appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 18-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Castillejo Hunosta contends that the district court erred by (1) failing to address or consider his request that the revocation sentence run concurrently to the sentence imposed for Castillejo Hunosta’s new criminal conviction, and (2) relying on impermissible sentencing factors. 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 district court considered only proper sentencing factors, as well as Castillejo Hunosta’s argument for a concurrent sentence, and sufficiently explained the sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.