
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eddie C. OUTLAW, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-60842
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    July 22, 2015.
    Darren John Lamarca, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Jackson, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Abby Webber Brumley, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Thomas Creagher Turner, Jr., Esq., Federal Public Defender’S Office, Jackson, MS, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before CLEMENT, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Eddie C. Outlaw pleaded guilty of five counts of distribution of cocaine base, and the district court varied upward from the 57-to-71-month guidelines range in imposing concurrent 78-month terms of imprisonment and concurrent three-year periods of supervised release as well as a $1,500 fine. Outlaw has appealed his sentence, contending that the above-guidelines sentence was substantively unreasonable and that the district court’s reasons for the sentence imposed were inadequate.

After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), sentences are reviewed for procedural error and substantive reasonableness under an abuse of discretion standard. United States v. Johnson, 619 F.3d 469, 471-72 (5th Cir.2010) (citing Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50-51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007)). Because Outlaw did not object to the adequacy of the district court’s reasons for its upward variance, this court’s review of that question is for plain error. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir.2009) (citing United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 806 (5th Cir.2008)). To show plain error, Outlaw must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009) (citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-34, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993)). If he makes such a showing, this court has the discretion to correct the error but only if it- seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See id. (citing Olano, 507 U.S. at 736, 113 S.Ct. 1770).

When the district court imposes a non-guidelines sentence, it must articulate its reasons for the sentence imposed more thoroughly. United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 707 (5th Cir.2006) (citing United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir.2005)). Its reasons should be fact-specific and consistent with the statutory sentencing factors. Id. (citing Mares, 402 F.3d at 519). “The court, however, need not engage in ‘robotic incantations that each statutory factor has been considered.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Lamoreaux, 422 F.3d 750, 756 (8th Cir.2005)). Where the record makes the sentencing judge’s reasoning clear and allows for effective review, no further explanation is required'. United States v. Fraga, 704 F.3d 432, 439 (5th Cir.2013) (citing Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 359, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007)).

Contrary to Outlaw’s assertions on appeal, it was not improper for the district court to consider Outlaw’s criminal history in imposing a non-guidelines sentence. See Smith, 440 F.3d at 709 (citing Mares, 402 F.3d at 519). The district court considered the nature and circumstances of the offense and Outlaw’s history and characteristics in determining that a more lengthy sentence was necessary to provide an adequate punishment, to deter future criminal conduct, and to protect the public from Outlaw’s criminality. See id. (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)). The district court’s reasons were adequate, and the seven-month upward variance was not substantively unreasonable. There was no error, plain or otherwise. The judgment 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.
     