term of supervised release for § 2250 violations. Under these facts, Mosley cannot show a “reasonable probability” that, but for the alleged error, his sentence would have been different, thus he fails to meet his burden of demonstrating plain error. See United States v. Segura, 747 F.3d 323, 330-31 (5th Cir.2014) (explaining that error did not affect substantial rights where district court’s only reference to the guidelines recommendation was to adopt them and court stated that lifetime term of supervised release was necessary for defendant to assimilate back into society). When reviewing the reasonableness of a sentence, we apply an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 597, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); see also Zinn, 321 F.3d at 1087 (<HOLDING>). As to Mosley’s second procedural
holding that supervised release sentences are normally reviewed for abuse of discretion holding that denial of joinder motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion holding that the imposition of sanctions is reviewed for abuse of discretion holding that the dismissal of a frivolous action reviewed for abuse of discretion holding that further supervised release may be ordered as a sentence for violation of supervised release