
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hosie JAMES, III, a/k/a James Hosie, III, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 93-2516
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 16, 1995.
    Jerome Godinich, Jr. (court-appointed), Houston, TX, for appellant.
    Paula C. Offenhauser, Katherine L. Ha-den, Asst. U.S. Attys., Lawrence D. Finder, U.S. Atty., Houston, TX, for appellee.
    Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Hosie James, III, was convicted of possession with intent to distribute over 50 grams of crack cocaine. The probation officer determined that James’ guidelines sentence range was 151-to-188 months. The district court adopted the PSR and sentenced James to a term of 160 months. James argues that the district court failed to supply adequate reasons for choosing the 160-month sentence.

By statute a sentencing court must consider the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; the need for punishment, deterrence, public protection and rehabilitation; the available sentences; the guidelines and policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission; the need for consistency in sentencing; and the need for restitution. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

If a defendant’s guidelines sentencing range exceeds twenty-four months, the district court must state in open court its reasons for the particular sentence that it has imposed. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(1). The sentencing court is to link the pertinent facts to the relevant statutory factor[s] supporting the sentence imposed. United States v. Duran, 37 F.3d 557, 560-61 (9th Cir.1994); United States v. Rosa, 11 F.3d 315, 344-35 (2nd Cir.1993), cert. denied — U.S. -, -, 114 S.Ct. 1565, 1864, 128 L.Ed.2d 211, 485 (1994); 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

James did not object to the district court’s allegedly inadequate reasons for imposing a 160-month sentence. Therefore, we review for plain error. United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162 (5th Cir.1994) (en banc). The requirements enunciated in Cal-verley have' not been met.

AFFIRMED.  