Defendant-Appellant Trenton Don Wilson appeals the sentence imposed on revocation of his supervised release after he admitted using and possessing controlled *352 substances in violation of the conditions of his release. The district court imposed the 24-month prison term “to meet the objectives of punishment and deterrence.” Wilson contends that the court erred in light of United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 844 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 496, 181 L.Ed.2d 345 (2011). We review for plain error because Wilson failed to preserve the purported Miller error in the district court. See United States v. Rodriguez, 15 F.3d 408, 414 (5th Cir. 1994).

In Miller, we held that it is improper for a district court to rely on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A) factors, which include punishment, for the modification or revocation of a term of supervised release because Congress deliberately omitted that subsection from the first clause of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). 634 F.3d at 844. Unlike the revocation under § 3583(e) at issue in Miller, the revocation of Wilson’s term of supervised release was mandated by 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g). Because § 3583(g) does not expressly invoke the § 3553(a) factors or the limits imposed by the first clause of § 3583(e), we find no clear or obvious error under Miller. See United States v. Giddings, 37 F.3d 1091, 1095-97 (5th Cir. 1994); see also United States v. Ibanez, No. 11-10504, 454 Fed.Appx. 328, 329-30, 2011 WL 6337771, at *1 (5th Cir. Dec. 19, 2011) (unpublished).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.