Flavio Hernandez-Caballero appeals the sentence imposed for his conviction for illegal reentry into the United States. He argues that his sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable because the district court imposed a two-year term of supervised release, notwithstanding that U.S.S.G. § 5Dl.l(c) provides that supervised release “ordinarily” should not be imposed “in a case in which supervised release is not required by statute and the defendant is a deportable alien who likely will be deported after imprisonment.” Hernandez-Caballero contends that the district court, in imposing supervised release, relied on the prohibited factor of punishment. Because Hernandez-Caballero did not raise this objection in the district court, review is limited to plain error. See United States v. Dominguez-Alvarado, 695 F.3d 324, 328 (5th Cir. 2012); Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009).

The record reflects that the district court was aware of the provisions of § 5Dl.l(c). Given the statements that the district court made when it imposed the sentence, which addressed Hernandez-Caballero’s history and characteristics and the need for deterrence and protection, Hernandez-Caballero fails to show that the district court procedurally erred by relying on the prohibited factor of punishment in imposing the term of supervised *353 release. See Dominguez-Alvarado, 695 F.3d at 329-30. Additionally, given that the district court relied upon the permissible factors of deterrence and protection in imposing the term of supervised release, Hernandez-Caballero’s argument that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it gives significant weight to an “improper factor” also fails. The judgment of the district court is thus AFFIRMED.