Derek Parra appeals the 48-month prison sentence that the district court imposed upon revoking his supervised release. The sentence was above the advisory range of eight to 14 months.

Parra argues that the evidence that he committed assault while on supervised release was inconclusive and that the district court should have given less weight to that allegation. However, Parra fails to show that the district court’s factual findings with respect to his revocation sentencing *262 were not plausible in light of the record as a whole. United States v. Alaniz-Alaniz, 38 F.3d 788, 790 & n.3 (5th Cir. 1994).

We review his remaining claims for plain error as he did not object to the sentence as procedurally erroneous or substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 326-27, 332 (5th Cir. 2013). Although Parra argues that the district court imposed the revocation sentence as punishment for his assault offense, cf. United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843-44 (5th Cir. 2011), the court properly considered the nature of Parra’s violations, along with Parra’s history of violence against women and children, as relevant to the proper statutory factors On which it relied, including deterrence and incapacitation,, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(B), (C). The court considered the relevant Guideline policy statement in sentencing Parra, see United States v. Mathena, 23 F.3d 87, 93 (5th Cir. 1994), and adequately explained the chosen sentence, see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 357, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). The district court’s reasons justified the 48-month sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007), Parra fails to show error, plain or otherwise.

AFFIRMED.