MEMORANDUM **

Abraham Salamanca appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 30-month term of supervised release imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Salamanca contends that his supervised release term is substantively unreasonable in light of his lengthy period of compliance *995 during his prior term of supervised release and because it will not promote his rehabilitation. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The term of supervised release is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Salamanca’s repeated violations. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586. Furthermore, contrary to Salamanca’s contention, the record reflects that the district court considered only proper sentencing factors. See United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1182 (9th Cir. 2006).

AFFIRMED.