MEMORANDUM **

Darcy Paschall appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the six-month custodial sentence and 51-month term of supervision imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction. under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Paschall contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to respond to her nonfrivolous argument in favor of leniency. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there was none. The record reflects that the district court considered Paschall’s argument and adequately explained its reasons for imposing the sentence selected. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358-59, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).

Paschall also contends that the 51-month term of supervised release is substantively unreasonable in light of the district court’s willingness to terminate supervision in two years if Paschall remains violation-free. 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 Paschall’s history of drug and alcohol abuse. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

AFFIRMED.