
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Tyrone JONES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-30680
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    April 8, 2011.
    Gregory Martin Kennedy, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Diane Hollenshead Copes, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Stephen Andrew Higginson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Robin Elise Schulberg, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Samuel J. Scillitani, Jr., Federal Public Defender’s Office, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Tyrone Jones appeals the sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release subsequent to his convictions for felon in possession of a firearm and possession of a firearm while being subject to a protective order. Jones argues that his 24-month sentence, which was above the recommended guidelines range, was unreasonable given that his violations were only Grade C violations. Jones did not object to his sentence in the district court. Accordingly, we review his appeal for plain error only. See United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 259-60 (5th Cir.2009); see also Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 1429, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009).

Because the 24-month sentence Jones received on revocation was not greater than the term authorized by statute, it is “clearly legal.” United States v. Pena, 125 F.3d 285, 288 (5th Cir.1997). Additionally, this court has routinely upheld sentences on revocation greater than the advisory policy range but within the statutory maximum. See United States v. Jones, 182 Fed.Appx. 343, 344 (5th Cir.2006) (per curiam); United States v. Milligan, 353 Fed.Appx. 954 (5th Cir.2009). Thus, there is no plain error with regard to Jones’s 24-month sentence. See Puckett, 129 S.Ct. at 1429. Accordingly, 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     