
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. John Hoke BROOKER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-11240
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 29, 2012.
    John Preston Bradford, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jason Douglas Hawkins, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Dallas, TX, Christopher Allen Curtis, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

John Hoke Brooker challenges his sentence of 63 months in prison, imposed following his guilty-plea conviction to possession of counterfeit obligations, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 472. Brooker contends that his sentence, an upward departure or variance from the advisory sentencing guidelines range of 24 to 30 months, was substantively unreasonable.

Following United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), our review of sentences is for reasonableness in light of the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 518-19 (5th Cir.2005). When the district court has imposed a sentence that varies from the guidelines range, reasonableness review requires that we evaluate whether the sentence “unreasonably fails to reflect the statutory sentencing factors” set forth in § 3553(a). United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 708 (5th Cir.2006).

The record indicates that the district court properly considered the § 3553(a) factors. The 63-month sentence reflected the seriousness of Brooker’s offense, the need to promote respect for the law, the need to provide just punishment, and the need to protect the public from future crimes. The sentence imposed was reasonable “under the totality of the relevant statutory factors.” United States v. Jones, 444 F.3d 430, 441 (5th Cir.2006). Brook-er’s disagreement with the sentence and the district court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) factors is insufficient to show the court abused its discretion. See United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 807 (5th Cir.2008). Along that line, the sentence was 33 months above the top of the advisory guidelines sentencing range. Our court has upheld variances considerably greater than the increase to Brooker’s sentence. E.g., United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 349-50 (5th Cir.2008); United States v. Smith, 417 F.3d 483, 492-93 (5th Cir.2005).

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.
     