Vincente Roman appeals his eighteen-month term of imprisonment imposed after the district court revoked his supervised release. He argues that the sentence is unreasonable because it was higher than the applicable advisory sentencing range of six to twelve months pursuant to policy statements in Chapter 7 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual. Pursuant to United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2006), revocation sentences are reviewed to determine whether they are “plainly unreasonable” with regard to the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors applicable to these sentences. We find that Roman’s sentence is not plainly unreasonable, because the district court sufficiently stated a proper basis for its conclusion that Roman should be sentenced to a lengthier sentence than one within the advisory range. We therefore affirm Roman’s sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.