
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Fredy Orlando BORJAS-RAMOS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-40454.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 10, 2016.
    Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Philip G. Gallagher, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KING, JOLLY,, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

A federal grand jury indicted Defendant-Appellant Fredy Orlando Borjas-Ra-mos for illegally reentering the United States in . violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b) on November 25, 2014. Borjas-Ramos pleaded guilty without a plea agreement. A presentence investigation report (PSR) was prepared using the 2014 edition of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, and the district court concluded that the relevant Guidelines range for Borjas-Ramos was 46-57 months. Bor-jas-Ramos objected to the PSR and requested a downward departure, but he did not object at the sentencing hearing to the sentence imposed by the district court.

Borjas-Ramos timely appealed, and we review the district court’s sentencing decision “for reasonableness.” United States v. Anderson, 559 F.3d 348, 354 (5th Cir.2009). Because Borjas-Ramos failed to properly object at sentencing, our review is for plain error. United States v. Dominguez-Alvarado, 695 F.3d 324, 327 (5th Cir.2012). This court finds plain error when: (1) there is error;. (2) the error is plain; (3) the error affects substantial rights; and (4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See United States v. Cedillo-Narvaez, 761 F.3d 397, 401-02 (5th Cir.) cert. denied, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 764, 190 L.Ed.2d 636 (2014); United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir.2005).

“[W]hen a sentencing judge imposes a properly calculated Guidelines sentence, ‘[this court] will give great deference to that sentence.’ ” United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir.2006) (quoting Mares, 402 F.3d at 520). Borjas-Ramos has failed to show that the district court committed any reversible error. Therefore, he cannot satisfy the first two prongs of plain eiTor review. Because Borjas-Ramos has shown no plain error, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 
      
       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.
     