Efrain Baldivia, III, appeals the 24-month sentence imposed after revocation of the supervised release term attendant to his conviction for possession with intent to distribute controlled substances. He argues for the first time that the district court impermissibly based the above-guidelines sentence on the seriousness of the offense and the need to provide just punishment in violation of United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841 (5th Cir. 2011). See 18 U.S.C § 3553(a)(2)(A).

Because in the district court Baldivia did not object to the sentence, review is for plain error only. See United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 259-60 (5th Cir. 2009). Under the plain error standard, Baldivia must show a plain (clear or obvious) forfeited error that affected his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009). If he does so, we have the discretion to correct the error, but should do so only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings. Id.

[*706] Baldivia, however, has not met this standard as the district court’s revocation sentence was permissibly based on the “nature” of the allegations of the supervised release violations that it found to be true, not on the “seriousness” of those alleged offenses. See § 3553(a)(1); Miller, 634 F.3d at 844. The non-guidelines sentence does not rise to the level of plain error given Baldivia’s history and characteristics, the need to deter future criminal conduct, and the need to protect the public. See § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B)-(C); Miller, 634 F.3d at 844.

AFFIRMED.