Larry Calloway appeals the 36-month sentence imposed following revocation of his supervised release. He argues that his sentence, which was above the recommended range, is plainly unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to accomplish the sentencing objectives of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

We review sentences imposed on revocation of supervised release under the plainly unreasonable standard. United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir. 2011). Calloway did not object in the district court. Therefore, 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 36-month sentence Callo-way received on revocation was not greater than the term authorized by statute, it is “clearly legal.” United States v. Pena, 125 F.3d 285, 288 (5th Cir. 1997). Additionally, this court has routinely upheld sentences on revocation greater than the advisory policy range but within the statutory maximum. See United States v. Milligan, 353 Fed.Appx. 954 (5th Cir. 2009)(unpublished); United States v. Jones, 182 Fed.Appx. 343, 344 (5th Cir. 2006) (unpublished). 1 Thus, there is no plain error with regard to Calloway’s 36-month sentence. See Puckett, 129 S.Ct. at 1429. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.