314, 317-18 (5th Cir.2002). We review for plain error Fobbs’s assertions that the district court considered improper factors in choosing his sentence. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir.2009). Fobbs’s unscored convictions and prior lenient sentences were proper grounds for his sentence above the Guidelines. See United States v. Zuniga-Peralta, 442 F.3d 345, 347-48 (5th Cir.2006); United States v. Lee, 358 F.3d 315, 328-29 (5th Cir.2004); § 3553(a)(1) & (2). Similarly, Fobbs does not show that the court’s mention of his total number of adult convictions in the Statement of Reasons for the sentence was an impermissible double-counting of the convictions used to establish career offender status. See United States v. Calbat, 266 F.3d 358, 364 (5th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). The district court did not commit any error
holding that testimony regarding witness credibility is prohibited unless it is admissible as character evidence holding that doublecounting is prohibited only if expressly forbidden holding that in context of patent claim at issue if means only if holding that reliquidation is not prohibited where a decision of customs is not being challenged holding that when a district court expressly grants leave to amend it is plain that the order is not final