Marcel Corona-Durango was convicted of illegal reentry into the United States and sentenced to serve 36 months in prison. He now appeals his sentence, which exceeds the advisory guidelines range, and argues that it is unreasonable and that the district court committed several errors when formulating his sentence. CoronaDurango contends that the district court placed too much emphasis on his criminal history, did not give proper consideration to the guidelines sentencing range, improperly balanced the sentencing factors found in 18 U.S.C. § 3553, did not give due consideration-to the relative seriousness of his offense, and did not consider whether a sentence of probation would result in unwarranted sentencing disparity. Because Corona-Durango did not raise these specific claims of error in the district court, review is for plain error only. See United States v. Hernandez-Martinez, 485 F.3d 270, 272-73 (5th Cir. 2007).

Corona-Durango has shown no error, plain or otherwise, in connection with his sentence. To the contrary, our review of the record shows that the district court committed no procedural error at sentencing, and the sentence imposed is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, -U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 586, 597, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.