In 2000, Ted Savala was convicted pursuant to a guilty plea of conspiring to commit arson. He was sentenced to five years of probation. Savala’s probation was subsequently revoked, and Savala was sentenced to serve nine months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. Savala now appeals the two-year term of imprisonment imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. Savala argues that the district court re *297 versibly erred in imposing his revocation sentence because the circumstances of his case do not warrant the statutory maximum two-year term of imprisonment imposed in his case.

Although the two-year term of imprisonment imposed upon revocation of Savala’s supervised release exceeded the sentencing range indicated by the policy statements in Chapter Seven of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, it did not exceed the statutory maximum term of imprisonment that the district court could have imposed. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Accordingly, Savala’s revocation sentence was neither “unreasonable” nor “plainly unreasonable.” See United States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 1804, 164 L.Ed.2d 540 (2006). Savala has not shown error.

AFFIRMED.