George Brent Chivers appeals the 57-month sentence imposed on remand from this court. Chivers, who was convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and two counts of aiding and abetting mail fraud, contends that his above-guidelines sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to explain the sentence adequately. He also argues that the sentence violates his due process rights because it resulted from judicial vindictiveness.

*308 Chivers has failed to demonstrate that the district court plainly erred by failing to explain the sentence adequately. When imposing the 57-month sentence, the district court stated that it considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, his history of violence against women, and his behavior at the resentencing hearing. See United States v. Key, 599 F.3d 469, 474-75 (5th Cir. 2010). He has also failed to demonstrate that the sentence resulted from judicial vindictiveness; the sentence received on resentencing was not harsher than the sentence received at sentencing. See United States v. Moore, 997 F.2d 30, 37-38 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.