Maryann Martinez-Saldivar appeals her sentence imposed upon revocation of her probation. She contends that the district court violated 18 U.S.C. § 3582(a) by considering her medical and psychological needs as a basis for imposing an above-guidelines term of 18 months of imprisonment. Because Martinez-Saldivar did not raise this issue in the district court, the plain error standard of review is applicable. See United States v. Weatherton, 567 F.3d 149, 152 (5th Cir. 2009).

To show plain error, the appellant must show (1) a forfeited error (2) that is clear or obvious and (3) that affects her substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 1429, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009). If the appellant makes such a showing, this court has the discretion to correct the error but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. A legal error is not clear or obvious if it is subject to reasonable dispute. See United States v. Rodriguez-Parra, 581 F.3d 227, 230 (5th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 1544, 176 L.Ed.2d 137 (2010). We need not decide whether the district court violated § 3582(a) because any such error would not have been clear or obvious. See United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 393 (5th Cir. 2007); United States v. Pena, 125 F.3d 285, 288 (5th Cir. 1997); United States v. Giddings, 37 F.3d 1091, 1094-97 (5th Cir. *63 1994); see also United States v. Ellis, 564 F.3d 370, 378 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 371, 175 L.Ed.2d 124 (2009).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.