Christopher Jabari Gard pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), § 924(a)(2). Gard appeals his within-guidelines sentence of 46 months, arguing that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to *531 consider U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b)(2), which instructs district courts to order sentences to run concurrently with undischarged state sentences; failed to use a concurrent sentence as a starting point; failed to acknowledge that it was imposing a variance; and failed to provide sufficient justification for imposing a variance.

During his sentencing, Gard asked the court to order that his sentence run concurrently with any sentence imposed in the state cases pending against him on related charges. However, Gard did not raise the arguments he raises here, namely, that the district court imposed his sentence without considering § 5G1.3(b)(2) and imposed a variance without sufficient justification. He also raised no objection after sentence was imposed. Accordingly, this court reviews his arguments for plain error. See United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 339 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.—, 129 S.Ct. 328, 172 L.Ed.2d 236 (2008); United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir.), cert, denied, — U.S.—, 130 S.Ct. 192, 175 L.Ed.2d 120 (2009). To demonstrate plain error, Gard must show a forfeited eiTor that is clear or obvious and affects his substantial rights. See Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d at 361. If these conditions are met, this court may exercise its discretion to correct the error if it “seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (citation omitted).

There is nothing in the record to indicate that Gard’s sentence would have been different if the court had given consideration to § 5G1.3(b)(2) or had provided greater explanation for what Gard contends is a variance. See id. at 364-65. Gard has thus failed to demonstrate error affecting his substantial rights. In light of this conclusion, we do not reach the parties’ threshold arguments regarding whether § 5G1.3(b)(2) applies to state sentences that have not been imposed.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.