MEMORANDUM **

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

*433 Newsham contends that the district court erred by failing to explain its sentence adequately. We review for plain error. See United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010). The record reflects that the court’s explanation of its above-Guidelines sentence was adequate. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Newsham additionally contends that his above-Guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable. We review for abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The 14-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Newsham’s history of consistently violating the conditions of his supervised release. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

AFFIRMED.