Jerome Roberts appeals the district court’s revocation of his supervised release and imposition of a term of imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. § 3588(g). He argues that the district court erred in not imposing substance-abuse treatment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) in lieu of incarceration. Roberts committed several violations of the conditions of his supervised release. Failure of a drug test was but one of those violations. Moreover, the district court considered but rejected the available treatment options. See § 3583(d). Accordingly, there was no error in the district court’s revocation of supervised release and imposition of a term of imprisonment. Roberts’ 24-month sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). His revocation sentence was therefore 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).

AFFIRMED.