Jose Rueperto Alaniz appeals the sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. The release followed his guilty plea conviction for conspiring to possess with intent to distribute and for distributing cocaine. Alaniz argues that the district court imposed a longer sentence of imprisonment than that recommended by the United States Sentencing Guidelines’ policy statements applicable to violations of supervised release (which he says was within the range of four to ten months). He asserts that this was plain error.

The district court may impose any sentence that falls within the maximum term of imprisonment allowed by statute for the revocation sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). In doing so, the district court is to consider the factors set forth in § 3553(a) and the advisory policy statements found in Chapter Seven of the Guidelines. United States v. Mathena, 23 F.3d 87, 90 (5th Cir. 1994). The statutory maximum term of imprisonment upon the revocation of Alaniz’s supervised release was five years. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Consequently, it was not error to sentence Alaniz to two years in prison. See id.

Alaniz’s argument that the district court did not adequately articulate its sentencing reasons also fails. On plain-error review of a revocation sentence, it suffices to show that the sentencing factors were at least implicitly considered. United States v. Teran, 98 F.3d 831, 836 (5th Cir. 1996). By announcing the reasons it gave for Alaniz’s revocation sentence, the district court demonstrated that it had implicitly considered the appropriate sentencing factors. See id.

AFFIRMED.