MEMORANDUM **

Jose Omar Acosta-Alvarez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 36-month sentence and three-year term of supervised release imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a removed alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Acosta-Alvarez contends that the district court committed procedural error by failing to explain adequately either the extent of its variance from the advisory Sentencing Guidelines or its imposition of a term of supervised release. Contrary to Acosta-Alvarez’s argument, we review for plain error because he did not assert these objections in the district court. See United States v. Valencias-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 & n. 3 (9th Cir. 2010). The district court sufficiently explained the sentence, including the supervised release term. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (“[AJdequate explanation in some cases may ... be inferred from ... the record as a whole.”).

Acosta-Alvarez also contends that the three-year term of supervised release is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing supervised release. See United States v. Valdavinos-Torres, 704 F.3d 679, 692 (9th Cir. 2012). The three-year term is not substantively unreasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and Acosta-Alvarez’s criminal and immigration history. See id. at 692-93; U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 cmt. n. 5.

AFFIRMED.