Cantu appeals the 18-month sentence imposed upon revocation of his term of supervised release. He argues that the sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court relied on the contents of an undisclosed mental health report in determining the sentence, in violation of his due process rights and his rights under Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.1(b)(2)(B). He further argues that the sentence is substantively unreasonable.

Cantu did not properly preserve his argument regarding the use of the mental health report below. See United States v. Hernandez-Martinez, 485 F.3d 270, 272 & n. 1 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 325, 169 L.Ed.2d 229 (2007). Accordingly, we review for plain error. Id. at 273. Cantu has not shown that his substantial rights were affected by the district court’s reliance on the mental health report. The sentencing transcript reveals that the district court intended to sentence Cantu to a term of incarceration even before the court reviewed the report. Nothing in the record indicates whether the length of Cantu’s sentence was affected by the district court’s reliance on the report. Accordingly, there is no plain error. See id.

*383 The record reflects that the district court implicitly considered the sentencing factors set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Gonzalez, 250 F.3d 923, 930 (5th Cir. 2001). The district court determined that an 18-month sentence was appropriate given Cantu’s need for intensive, in-patient drug treatment. The sentence, although twice the advisory guidelines range, is neither unreasonable nor plainly unreasonable. See United States v. McKinney, 520 F.3d 425, 427-28 (5th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.