2007 judgment of the district court sentencing him principally to a 120-month term of imprisonment. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and proceedings in the district court. This Court reviews sentencing decisions for reasonableness, asking “whether the sentencing judge exceeded the bounds of allowable discretion, committed an error of law in the course of exercising discretion, or made a clearly erroneous finding of fact.” United States v. Fernandez, 443 F.3d 19, 27 (2d Cir.2006) (alterations, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). However, where a defendant fails to raise an issue in district court, we review for plain error. United States v. Rybicki, 354 F.3d 124, 128-29 (2d Cir.2003); see also United States v. Villafuerte, 502 F.3d 204, 211 (2d Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). To establish plain error, the defendant must
holding that plain error review applies when a party fails to raise a claim before the district court holding that plain error review is used for unpreserved challenges to the method by which the district court arrived at a sentence including arguments that the sentencing court failed to explain adequately the sentence imposed under the statutory factors in  3553a recognizing similar analysis applies to discrimination and retaliation claims holding that plain error review is used for unpreserved challenges to the method by which the trial court arrived at a sentence including arguments that the sentencing court failed to explain adequately the sentence imposed holding that plain error analysis applies to unpreserved claims that a district court failed to comply with  3553e