Robert Noble Hammons appeals the sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. He contends that the district court erred in ordering two consecutive terms of imprisonment because the court’s original sentence had been for one term of supervised release. Given Hammons’s objection at the revocation hearing, we review under the “plainly unreasonable” standard. See United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 326 (5th Cir. 2013). If this court determines that the sentence imposed was unreasonable, it may reverse the district court only if “the-error was obvious under existing law.” Id. (quoting United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir. 2011)).

Hammons has not met this standard. Given the ambiguities in the oral pronouncement and written judgment as to whether the original sentence was for one term of supervised release or two concurrent terms of supervised release, we assess the intent of the sentencing court as “discerned from the entire record.” United States v. McAfee, 832 F.2d 944, 946 (5th Cir. 1987) (per curiam). Contrary to Ham-mons’s arguments, the district court here did not improperly alter its original sentence but rather clarified it. Because of the district court’s explanation of its intent, and the absence of authority to support Hammons’s argument, he has not shown that the district court committed an obvious error under existing law. Warren, 720 F.3d at 326.

AFFIRMED