MEMORANDUM
William Slattery appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Slattery contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain adequately its reasons for the revocation sentence. The record belies his contention.
Slattery next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. In light of Slattery’s breach of trust and failure to be deterred, and the need to protect the public, the sentence is substantively reasonable. See 18 U.S.C. § 3588(e); United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir.2007) (where defendant violates supervised release by committing same offense for which he was placed on supervised release, breach of trust is more significant and “greater sanctions may be required to deter future criminal activity”).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.