
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javier ROJAS-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant..
    No. 10-12809
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Jan. 4, 2011.
    
      Nicholas Oldham, Lawrence R. Sommerfeld, Sally Yates, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Kendal D. Silas, Stephanie Kearns, Federal Defender Program, Inc., Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before BLACK, HULL and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Javier Rojas-Ramirez appeals his 57-month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to illegally re-entering the United States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Rojas-Ramirez argues his bottom-of-the-Guidelines-range sentence is substantively unreasonable because the sentence overstates his criminal history and overemphasizes his negative personal characteristics. After review, we affirm Rojas-Ramirez’s sentence.

Rojas-Ramirez fails to demonstrate his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the record and the § 3553(a) factors. In fashioning the sentence, the district court stressed Rojas-Ramirez’s recidivist violation of U.S. immigration law, Rojas-Ramirez’s violence toward his family, and the need for a “serious penalty” to deter repetitious violation of the U.S. immigration laws. Rojas-Ramirez has entered the United States illegally at least three times in the past 30 years and has been deported twice. The 57-month sentence occupies the bottom of the applicable Guidelines range of 57 to 71 months, and we ordinarily expect such a sentence to be reasonable. See United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir.2005). Because Rojas-Ramirez’s sentence is supported by the § 3553(a) factors, the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Rojas-Ramirez to 57 months’ imprisonment.

AFFIRMED. 
      
      . We review a final sentence imposed by the district court for reasonableness. United States v. Winingear, 422 F.3d 1241, 1245 (11th Cir.2005). Reasonableness review is akin to the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).
     