Robert Lee Morgan appeals the 120-month sentence imposed following the revocation of his original sentence of three-years’ probation for his guilty-plea conviction for passing a counterfeit security, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 513(a). Because Morgan did not specifically object to the sentence imposed upon revocation of his probation in the district court, review is for plain error only. See United States v. Byrd, 116 F.3d 770, 772 (5th Cir. 1997); see also 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 Jones, 484 F.3d at 791.

*77 Morgan has pointed to no authority for the proposition that the sentence imposed upon revocation was plain or obvious error. He argues that the sentence imposed was unreasonable because his probation was revoked on Grade C violations only, with a resulting advisory guidelines range of eight to 14 months. However, he does not contest that the district court was authorized to impose the statutory maximum 120-month sentence on each count of conviction. See § 513(a). This court has routinely upheld a sentence following the revocation of supervised release that exceeded the applicable guidelines recommendation but fell within the statutory maximum. 1 See United States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Jones, 182 Fed Appx. 343, 344 (5th Cir. 2006) (unpublished). Consequently, the district court’s judgment is affirmed. Morgan’s challenge to the computation of credit for time served is not considered as it has not first been administratively exhausted through the Federal Bureau of Prisons. See United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 331-32, 334-35, 112 S.Ct. 1351,117 L.Ed.2d 593 (1992).

AFFIRMED.