Appealing the 18-month sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release, William Clark Per-schmann argues that .the district court used the wrong advisory guidelines range. We review this argument for plain error due to his failure to present it to the district court. See United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 259 (5th Cir. 2009). To meet this standard, Perschmann must show a clear or obvious error that affected his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009). We have discretion to correct such an error but will do so only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings. Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423. Perschmann has not shown that the district court plainly erred by concluding that the bank robberies that led to the revocation were Grade A violations of his release and by using the corresponding guidelines range to sentence him. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.