Robert Lee Moreland appeals the sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release subsequent to his convictions for possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. More-land argues that his 24-month sentence, which was outside of the recommended guidelines range, was unreasonable. Moreland did not object to his sentence. Accordingly, we review his appeal for plain error only. See United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 259-60 (5th Cir. 2009); see also Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 1429, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009).

Because the 24-month sentence More-land received on revocation was less than the term authorized by statute, it is “clearly legal.” United States v. Pena, 125 F.3d 285, 288 (5th Cir. 1997). Moreover, this court has “routinely upheld release revocation sentences in excess of the advisory range but within the statutory maximum” as satisfying both the plainly unreasonable and unreasonableness standards. United States v. Jones, 182 Fed.Appx. 343, 344 (5th Cir. 2006) (per curiam); see United *361 States v. McKinney, 520 F.3d 425, 428 (5th Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED.