MEMORANDUM **

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

Slattery contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court overstated the seriousneás of the violation and failed to credit his attempts at rehabilitation. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Slattery’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The above-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Slattery’s repeated breaches of the court’s trust and the need to protect the public. See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007). Moreover, contrary to Slattery’s contention, the district court did not base the sentence on any clearly erroneous fact. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.