
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gordon Grady HENRY, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-10011
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Nov. 3, 2009.
    Steven M. Sucsy, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Lubbock, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jason Douglas Hawkins, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Dallas, TX, Helen Miller Liggett, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Lubbock, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before REAVLEY, DAVIS and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

In 2004, Gordon Grady Henry pleaded guilty to possession of an unregistered firearm. He now appeals the 24-month prison sentence imposed following the revocation of supervised release. He contends that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court failed to provide adequate reasons to explain the sentence.

Because Henry failed to articulate his objection at sentencing, this court reviews for plain error. See United States v. Hernandez-Martinez, 485 F.3d 270, 272-73 (5th Cir.2007). To demonstrate plain error, Henry must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and affects his substantial rights. See id. If these conditions are met, this court may exercise its discretion to correct the error if it “seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id.

Nothing in the record suggests that Henry’s sentence would have been different if the court had provided more reasons for its choice of sentence. See United States v. Mandragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 365 (5th Cir.2009), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 130 S.Ct. 192, 175 L.Ed.2d 120 (2009). Henry has thus failed to demonstrate error affecting his substantial rights. See id. In addition, Henry has not rebutted the presumption that the sentence within the properly calculated advisory guidelines range was reasonable. See United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 809 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 129 S.Ct. 625, 172 L.Ed.2d 617 (2008).

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     