Candida Ortiz was convicted of importing marijuana, importing heroin, and possessing with intent to distribute heroin. She now challenges her sentence as unreasonable. Under Ortiz’s view, her sentence is greater than necessary to achieve the aims of 18 U.S.C. § 8553(a) because the below-guidelines sentence failed to take into account her history and characteristics, namely, her difficult past and history of drug abuse.

Because Ortiz did not object to her sentence, we review her argument for plain error only. See United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007). Under this standard, the appellant must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects her substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 134-35, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009). If she makes such a showing, this court has the discretion to correct the error but will do so only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. This standard has not been met.

Insofar as Ortiz argues that the district court erred by not according enough weight to certain sentencing factors, this argument amounts to no more than a disagreement with the district court’s weighing of these factors, which shows no error in connection with the sentence imposed. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). To the extent she contends that this court should reweigh the § 3553(a) factors, we decline to do so. See United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 339 (5th Cir. 2008); see also Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (“The fact that the appellate court might reasonably have concluded that a different sentence was appropriate is insufficient to justify reversal of the district court.”). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.