Melissa Ann Casas appeals the 28-month sentence imposed following the third revocation of her supervised release following her guilty plea to marijuana distribution. Casas argues that the district court’s upward variance was procedurally and substantively unreasonable. As Casas did not object on these bases in the district court, our review is for plain error only. See United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 259-60 (5th Cir. 2009).

The sentencing transcript refutes Ca-sas’s allegation that the district court committed procedural error by failing to adequately articulate the reasons for the upward variance. Additionally, the record indicates that the district court gave adequate consideration to the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and did not exceed the statutory maximum term of imprisonment authorized upon revocation of supervised release. Casas has therefore not shown plain error with regard to either the procedural or substantive reasonableness of her sentence. See id. at 265.

AFFIRMED.