MEMORANDUM **

William Lambert, Jr., appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 24-month term of supervised release imposed as part of his sentence following the revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Lambert contends that the district court procedurally erred by considering impermissible sentencing factors. We review for plain error, see United States v. Hammons, 558 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir. 2009), and find none. Lambert has failed to show that any error affected his substantial rights. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734-35, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993).

Lambert also contends that the 24-month term of supervised release is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Lambert’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, *675 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The 24-month term of supervised release is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Lambert’s repeated breaches of the court’s trust and his history of substance abuse. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

AFFIRMED.