
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Isidoro Duran MIRELES, also known as Isidoro Lolo Duran, also known as Isidoro Duran-Mireles, also known as Alejandro Mendoza-Duran, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-20305
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Jan. 30, 2012.
    Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Sarah Beth Landau, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Isidoro Duran Míreles was sentenced, inter alia, to 42-months’ imprisonment following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry. Duran Míreles contends the sentence, an upward variance from an advisory Guidelines-sentencing range of 15 to 21 months, is “greater than necessary” and, thus, substantively . unreasonable. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He maintains the district court did not give enough weight to: his advisory Guidelines-sentencing range; his reason for reentry (to be with his pregnant wife); and, the inability of someone with his limited mental capacity to be deterred by a long prison sentence.

Where a sentencing ruling is procedurally sound, the “substantive reasonableness” of the sentence is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). District courts have a duty to consider the § 3553(a) sentencing factors and to determine correctly the applicable Guidelines-sentencing range. United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 518-19 (5th Cir.2005). “In reviewing a non-guidelines sentence for substantive unreasonableness, the court will consider the totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the Guidelines range.” United States v. Key, 599 F.3d 469, 475 (5th Cir.2010) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 997, 178 L.Ed.2d 832 (2011). A non-Guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable, and an abuse of discretion, if it: “(1) does not account for a factor that should have received significant weight, (2) gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or (3) represents a clear error of judgment in balancing the sen-fencing factors”. United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 708 (5th Cir.2006).

The district court took Duran Míreles’ above-described contentions into consideration. But, the court stressed Duran Mí-reles’ pattern of recidivism, noting that he had been convicted of illegal reentry in 2002, returned illegally in 2004, was deported again in 2009, and returned illegally again in 2010. The court also noted that, after returning in 2010, Duran Míreles was indicted for possession of 75 pounds of marijuana and possession of a firearm as a felon. And, the court found that Duran Míreles’ prior 27-month sentence had been insufficient to deter him from reentering the country illegally.

It is not possible, let alone required, that district courts give all of the sentencing factors equal weight. United States v. Hernandez, 633 F.3d 370, 375 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 3006, 180 L.Ed.2d 832 (2011). The district court was correct to have used its “judgment to weigh the relative importance of each factor in relation to [Duran Míreles]” and did not abuse its discretion by weighing some factors more heavily than others. Id.

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.
     