Jonathan Bishop appeals the 24-month sentence imposed following the revocation of supervised release. He contends that the district court erred by finding that the conduct that resulted in revocation, possession of a small amount of cocaine, was a *465 Grade B violation rather than a Grade C violation.

A conviction for possession of any amount of cocaine could have resulted in Bishop’s imprisonment for more than one year under Texas law. See Texas Health & Safety Code § 481.112; Texas Penal Code § 12.35(a). The conduct therefore constituted a Grade B violation, and the sentence was within the proper advisory guidelines range. See U.S.S.G. §§ 7Bl.l(a)(2), 7B1.4(a)(table).

In any event, the sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum, and the district court considered the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) when choosing the sentence. The sentence was thus neither “unreasonable” nor “plainly unreasonable.” See United States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 119-20 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1083, 126 S.Ct. 1804, 164 L.Ed.2d 540 (2006).

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.