a revocation sentence. See Miller, 634 F.3d at 844. Revocation sentences are governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), which outlines the specific factors of § 3553(a) that a district court must consider. See Miller, 634 F.3d at 844. Because § 3583(e) does not reference § 3553(a)(2)(A), we recently held that “it is improper for the district court to rely on § 3553(a)(2)(A) for the modification or revocation of a supervised release term.” Id. We reject LeBoeufs argument that the district court committed reversible error in imposing his revocation sentence. First, it is not clear that the district court even considered § 3553(a)(2)(A). Nowhere did the district court specifically reference that subsection or “just punishment.” Although the court mentioned “punishmen 5th Cir.2011) (unpublished) (<HOLDING>). LeBoeuf therefore has not shown reversible
holding that an error is plain if it is clear or obvious holding that a district court committed plain error by imposing a sentence in contravention of statutory requirements holding that defendant could not show district courts alleged error in considering  3553a2a when imposing a revocation sentence was clear or obvious under plain error review holding that the courts review is conducted under the plain error standard holding that because of unsettled case law district courts error was not obvious and therefore not plain