MEMORANDUM **

Miguel Gutierrez-Padilla appeals from the consecutive 18-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Gutierrez-Padilla argues that the district court denied him his right of allocution before sentencing him on his violation of supervised release. The record belies his claim. During a consolidated hearing, the court invited Gutierrez-Padilla to speak before imposing sentence on his new conviction for illegal reentry and his violation of supervised release. Thus, Gutierrez-Padilla was given “an opportunity to make a statement and present any information in mitigation,” Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.1(b)(2)(E), before sentence was imposed. See United States v. Allen, 157 F.3d 661, 666 (9th Cir. 1998).

Next, Gutierrez-Padilla alleges that the court failed to calculate his Guidelines range. However, the record shows that the court adopted the correctly-calculated Guidelines range proposed by the probation officer.

Finally, Gutierrez-Padilla contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Gutierrez-Padilla’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The low-end sentence is' substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

AFFIRMED.