David Antonio Galeas Correa challenges the sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. *248§ 1326. He contends his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court did not expressly address the reasons Galeas advanced to support a sentence below the sentencing range under the Sentencing Guidelines.
Although post--Booker, the Guidelines are advisory only, and a properly preserved objection to an ultimate sentence is reviewed for reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard, the district court must still properly calculate the advisory Guidelines-sentencing range for use in deciding on the sentence to impose. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). In that respect, for issues preserved in district court, its application of the Guidelines is reviewed de novo; its factual findings, only for clear error. Kg., United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir.2008).
As Galeas concedes, because he did not raise in district court the issue presented • here, review is only for plain error. E.g., United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir.2009) (citation omitted). Under that standard, he must show a forfeited plain (clear or obvious) error that affected his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009). If he does so, we have the discretion to correct the error, but should do so only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings. Id.
After listening to the parties’ differing positions regarding the length of Galeas’ sentence, the court ruled a sentence within the sentencing range was consistent with, and took into account, the purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (sentencing factors). In support, the court noted Galeas’ extensive immigration violations and numerous criminal convictions, and stated that a sentence at the mid-point of the sentencing range was necessary to deter future illegal reentry. In short, the court did not commit clear or obvious error. See, e.g., United States v. Camero-Renobato, 670 F.3d 633, 635 (5th Cir.2012).
AFFIRMED.