Merlin W. Winters appeals the 36-month sentence imposed by the district court as unreasonable. Winters’s sole argument on appeal is that the sentence was unreasonable in light of Winters’s need for treatment for drug addiction. As he did not preserve his objection to the sentence, however, we review for plain error. See United States v. Hernandez-Martinez, 485 F.3d 270, 274 (5th Cir. 2007). Finding none, we affirm.

The record demonstrated, and counsel argued, that Winters has a serious drug addiction. The court concluded that a lengthy period of incarceration would permit Winters to have access to the 500-hour drug rehabilitation program available through the Bureau of Prisons. The court was motivated by a desire to ensure that Winters had sufficient opportunity to overcome his addiction and return from prison a productive member of society. This was an appropriate factor to consider in assessing the sentence. See United States v. Pena, 125 F.3d 285, 288 (5th Cir. 1997); 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Further, the sentence was well below the statutory maximum of five years, which “strongly counsels against its being held reversible on plain error review.” Hernandez-Martinez, 485 F.3d at 274.

AFFIRMED.