
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hugo GONZALEZ-LAGUNA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-50017
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 22, 2009.
    
      Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Leon Schydlower, El Paso, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before GARZA, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Hugo Gonzalez-Laguna appeals his 72-month sentence for illegally reentering the United States following a previous deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain adequately the non-Guidelines sentence. He argues that his sentence was substantively unreasonable because the sentence was imposed arbitrarily, without reference to the insufficiency of the Guidelines range, and because the district court failed to make factual findings to support its reliance on any of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.

This court reviews a district court’s sentencing decision for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 128 S.Ct. 586, 597, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir.2008). This court first determines whether the district court committed any significant procedural error, such as failing to explain adequately its decision to deviate from the Guidelines range. Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 597. If there is no significant procedural error, this court reviews the sentence for substantive reasonableness. Id.

Although Gonzalez-Laguna preserved his objection to the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, he failed to object in the district court to the district coui't’s explanation of the sentence. Plain error review thex-efore governs this issue. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir.2009), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 192, 175 L.Ed.2d 120 (2009). To show plain error, the appellant must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. Puckett v. United, States, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 1429, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009).

The sentencing court must state “the reasons for its imposition of the particular sentence.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c). “The sentencing judge should set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the pax'ties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).

The district coux-t’s explanation reflects that the court expx-essly considered the § 3553(a) factors. The district coux't’s statements that Gonzalez-Laguna is “dangerous coming back to the [United] States” and that “you and I know that once you sexwe this time, you ax’e going to try to find a way to come back,” reflect that the district court considex'ed Gonzalez-Laguna’s history of violent criminal behavior and repeated illegal l’eentry into the United States, as noted by the Government at sentencing and in the PSR, as well as the need to protect the public. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(l)-(2)(C). The distilct court also explicitly stated that the sentence was calculated to deter Gonzalez-Laguna from future cxúminal activity and to ensure that Gonzalez-Laguna understood the seriousness of his offense. Gonzalez-Laguna has not shown that the distx'ict coux't committed clear or obvious ex-ror in its explanation of the non-Guidelines sentence.

Gonzalez-Laguna’s sentence is also substantively reasonable. In light of GonzalezALaguna’s long histoi’y of violent crimes and his continued flouting of the law by returning to the United States despite pxñor removals, he has not shown that the district court abused its discx'etion iix sentencing him to 72 months in px-ison. Further, this coxxx't has upheld variances considex'ably greater than the incx*ease in Gonzalez-Laguna’s sentence. See United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 348-50 (5th Cir.2008) (affirming a vaxiaixce from the Guidelines maximum of 51 months to a sentence of 180 months); United States v. Saldana, 427 F.3d 298, 312-13 (5th Cir.2005) (upholding the imposition of consecutive sentences that effectually quadx'upled the maximum Guidelines sentence); United States v. Smith, 417 F.3d 483, 492-93 (5th Cir.2005) (affirming an increase from the Guidelines maximum of 41 months to a sentence of 120 months).

Gonzalez-Laguna has not shown that the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence.

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cut. 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.
     