
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alberto PENA-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-12697
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Oct. 17, 2008.
    Suzanne Kay Hashimi, Federal Public Defender, Federal Defender Program, Inc., Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Stephanie Gabay-Smith, John Andrew Horn, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Before ANDERSON, HULL and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Alberto Pena-Lopez challenges his sentence of 12 months of imprisonment after revocation of his supervised release. Pena-Lopez argues that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court failed to consider that he re-entered the United States illegally to support his family. We affirm.

We review a sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release for reasonableness. See United States v. Sweeting, 437 F.3d 1105, 1106-07 (11th Cir.2006). We review the reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 586, 597, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). “[T]he party who challenges the sentence bears the burden of establishing that the sentence is unreasonable in the light of both [the] record and the factors in section 3553(a).” United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir.2005).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a sentence within the guideline range. Pena-Lopez entered the country illegally, which violated a term of his supervised release. The district court stated that Pena-Lopez’s recidivist conduct was “an act of defiance or [a] deliberate violation of the law” that it found “disturbing.” The nature and circumstances of an offense and the history and characteristics of a defendant are relevant to fashion an appropriate sentence. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e)(3); United States v. Clay, 483 F.3d 739, 743 (11th Cir.2007). Pena-Lopez’s sentence is reasonable.

AFFIRMED.  