PER CURIAM:
Edwardo Salvador Rodriguez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, and the district court sentenced him to 250 months of imprisonment and a $5,000 fine. Rodriguez argues that the district court erred by failing to verify at the sentencing hearing that he had read the presentence report, as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(l)(A).
Because Rodriguez did not object in the district court, we review his claim for plain error. United States v. Esparza-Gonzalez, 268 F.3d 272, 274 (5th Cir.2001). To show plain error, Rodriguez must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009). As Rodriguez acknowledges, he cannot show plain error. See Esparza-Gonzalez, 268 F.3d at 274.
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir, R. 47.5.4.