MEMORANDUM **

Samuel Hernandez-Castro appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Hernandez-Castro contends that the district court procedurally erred at sentencing by not addressing his argument in mitigation and failing to explain the reasons for his sentence. Because Heman-dez-Castro did not object on these grounds below, we review for plain error. See United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010); United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761-62 (9th Cir. 2008).

The record shows that the district court listened to defense counsel’s mitigation argument as well as Hernandez-Castro’s own statement regarding his prior conviction for sexual abuse of a minor. The court calculated the Sentencing Guidelines range and imposed a sentence at the lower end of that range. Hernandez-Castro offers no evidence or argument that there is a reasonable probability that the sentence would have been lower if the court had explicitly addressed his mitigation argument and provided more explanation for the sentence. Thus, Hernandez-Castro *725 has not shown that his substantial rights were affected, and so he has not met the plain error test. See Dallman, 533 F.3d at 761-62.

AFFIRMED.