PER CURIAM: Roberto J. Montelongo appeals his sentence of 50 months for illegal reentry into the United States. Montelongo argues that the district court violated
section 3553(
a) because it failed both to state and find that Montelongo’s sentence was “not greater than necessary.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The advisory Sentencing Guidelines range was 46 to 57 months of imprisonment, and Montelongo did not object at sentencing. We affirm. ‘When a defendant fails to object to an error before the district court, we review the argument for plain error.” United States v. Raad, 406 F.3d 1322, 1323 (11th Cir.), cert. denied - U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 196, 163 L.Ed.2d 207 (2005).
Plain error occurs where “ ‘(1) there is an error; (2) that is plain or obvious; (3) affecting the defendant’s substantial rights in that it was prejudicial and not harmless; and (4) that seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.’ ” Id. (quoting United States v. Hall, 314 F.3d 565, 566 (11th Cir.2002)). The district court did not err. “[N]othing ... requires [a] district court to state on the record that it has explicitly considered each of the [section] 3553(
a) factors or to discuss each of the [section] 3553(
a) factors.” United States v. Scott, 426 F.3d 1324, 1329 (11th Cir.2005). In addition, we review the sentence imposed by the district court for reasonableness and “ordinarily ... expect a sentence within the Guidelines range to be reasonable.” United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir.2005). Because Montelongo’s sentence “achieve[s] the purposes of sentencing as stated in [section] 3553(a),” it was reasonable. Id. AFFIRMED.