Darrius Brooks appeals the above-guidelines sentence imposed upon the revocation of his supervised release. Brooks contends that his 36-month sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to take into account his history of mental illness and its interplay with his drug addiction and instead punished him for prior adjudicated offenses that he committed as a teenager.

Ordinarily, revocation sentences are reviewed under the "plainly unreasonable” standard. United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir. 2011). However, as Brooks concedes, he failed to preserve the issue in the district court, and thus our review is for plain error. Under plain-error review, Brooks “must show an error that is clear or obvious and affects his substantial lights.” United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 260 (5th Cir. 2009). If he makes the required showing, “this court has the discretion to correct the error but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id.

Although the district court did not expressly consider Brooks’s history of mental illness in imposing his revocation sentence, Brooks did not raise any facts or arguments regarding this issue during his revocation proceedings. The district court stated that it considered the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including the history and characteristics of the defendant. The district court also expressly considered the applicable guidelines range, Brooks’s repeated drug offenses, and his blatant disregard for law enforcement. See § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), (a)(4)(B). In light of the foregoing, Brooks has not shown that the district court. committed plain error in imposing his sentence. See Whitelaw, 580 F.3d at 260, 265. Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.