Margarito Benitez-Salazar (Benitez) appeals the four-month sentence imposed following the revocation of a previously imposed term of supervised release. He argues that by imposing this sentence to run consecutively to a separate term of imprisonment, the district court imposed a sentence greater than necessary to meet the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Because Benitez did not object on this basis below, we review for plain error. See United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 2959, 171 L.Ed.2d 892 (2008); United States v. Jones, 484 F.3d 783, 792 (5th Cir. 2007). To establish plain error, Benitez must show (1) that there was error, (2) that the error was clear hr obvious, and (3) that the error affected his substantial rights. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-37, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). Even if Benitez establishes those factors, we will not exercise our discretion to correct the forfeited error unless it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See id. at 736, 113 S.Ct. 1770.

The district court had the authority, after consideration of the § 3553(a) factors, to order Benitez’s revocation sentence to run consecutively to the sentence imposed for his illegal reentry offense. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a), (b); see also United States v. Gonzalez, 250 F.3d 923, 925-29 (5th Cir. 2001). The policy statements in the Sentencing Guidelines also recommend the imposition of consecutive sentences. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.3(f), p.s. In addition, the district court gave reasons for its sentence consistent with the § 3553(a) factors. We conclude that Benitez has failed to establish any error, plain or otherwise.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.