Kenneth Douglas Parker appeals the 24-month sentence he received upon revocation of his supervised release. He contends that the sentence is unreasonable because it exceeds the recommended guidelines range without legally sufficient reasons and because the district court failed to address specifically the concerns of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Because Parker raises these arguments for the first time on appeal, review is for plain error only. See United States v. Jones, 484 F.3d 783, 791 (5th Cir. 2007). The sentence thus must be upheld unless there is error that is plain and that affects both the appellant’s substantial rights and the integrity of the proceedings. See id.

The sentence imposed, though in excess of the recommended guidelines range, was within the statutory maximum and thus was not plainly erroneous. Id. The district court was not required to mention explicitly the § 3553(a) factors, and its consideration of the requisite factors is implicit in the record. See United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 707 (5th Cir. 2006).

AFFIRMED.