Encarnación Castillo, Jr., appeals the 24-month sentence imposed by the district court following the revocation of his supervised release. He argues that the district court failed to properly weigh the factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) when imposing the statutory maximum sentence, thereby rendering his sentence unreasonable.

Because Castillo did not object to his sentence in the district court, review is limited to plain error. See United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 805-06 (5th Cir. 2008). The district court considered the policy statements of Chapter 7 and determined that the facts of the instant case warranted a sentence above the recommended range. Castillo’s probation officer testified for sentencing purposes, revealing that Castillo tested positive for cocaine on one occasion and did not submit a urine specimen on another occasion. Castillo has not shown that his revocation sentence is unreasonable or plainly unreasonable. United States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir. 2005). Therefore, the district court did not plainly err in imposing Castillo’s sentence.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.