MEMORANDUM **
Abel Martin Carreon appeals from the district courts judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing a one-month sentence and 35-month term of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Carreon first contends that there was insufficient evidence to establish that his failure to make restitution payments was willful. In evaluating a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a supervised release revocation, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and ask whether “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of a violation by a preponderance of the evidence.” United States v. King, 608 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotations omitted). The evidence presented at the revocation hearing, including testimony from Carreons probation officers, was sufficient to support the district courts finding that Carreons actions were willful. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by revoking supervised release. See United States v. Perez, 526 F.3d 543, 547 (9th Cir. 2008).
Carreon also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because he was otherwise compliant with the terms of his supervision and his violation was allegedly minor. 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 sentence and supervised release term are substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Carreons breach of the courts trust. See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th Cir. 2007).
We do not consider arguments raised for the first time in the reply brief. See United States v. Kama, 394 F.3d 1236, 1238 (9th Cir. 2005).
AFFIRMED.