Jose Luis Zuniga-Hernandez (Zuniga) appeals his 87-month, above-Guidelines sentences imposed for being found in the United States illegally and being an alien in possession of firearm. He argues only that the district court imposed unreasonable sentences by failing to explain adequately its reasons for the sentences imposed.

A district court commits procedural error by “failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence[s] — including an explanation for any deviation[s] from the Guidelines range.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). However, because Zuniga did not object to the district court’s alleged failure during the sentencing hearing, we review only for plain error. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009). Zuniga does not attempt to show, and therefore cannot succeed in showing, that the district court plainly erred by failing to explain adequately its reasons for imposing the sentences. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009).

AFFIRMED.