Gil Morales-E spinoza appeals the within guidelines sentence imposed following his guilty plea to illegal reentry. He argues that the district court procedurally erred in failing to consider his nonfrivolous argument that the nature and circumstances of his aggravated assault and kidnapping convictions warranted a non-guidelines sentence. Because he failed to raise this procedural objection below, review is for plain error only. See 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).

“[WJhen a judge decides simply to apply the Guidelines to a particular case, doing so will not necessarily require lengthy explanation.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). The sentencing judge, however, should say more “ ‘[wjhere the defendant ... presents nonfrivolous reasons for imposing a different sentence.’ ” United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 261 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Rita, 551 U.S. at 356-57, 127 S.Ct. 2456). Morales-Espinoza’s contention that he presented the district court with a nonfrivolous reason in favor of a non-guidelines sentence is refuted by the presentence report’s description of the violent nature of his aggravated assault and kidnapping offenses. Moreover, the record supports a determination that the district court did indeed consider Morales-Espinoza’s downward departure argument. *507 Having imposed a within guidelines sentence, the district court was not required to provide extensive reasons for the sentence under these circumstances. See Rita, 551 U.S. at 356,127 S.Ct. 2456.

AFFIRMED.