
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Guadalupe GUERRERO-RODRIGUEZ, Also Known as Jesus Lopez Cabral, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-10982 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed July 17, 2017
    Lisa Robin Hasday, Assistant U.S. Attorney, James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Sherylynn Ann Kime-Goodwin, Assistant Federal. Public Defender, Helen Miller Liggett, .Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s, Office Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, Michael Arthur Lehmann, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant .
    Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Jose Guerrero-Rodríguez appeals the above-guidelines sentence imposed for illegal reentry after deportation. He challenges the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, which we review for an abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). “A non-Guidelines sentence unreasonably fails to reflect the statutory sentencing factors set forth in [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) where 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 sentencing factors.” United States v. Diehl, 775 F.3d 714, 724 (5th Cir. 2015). “[Rjeview for substantive reasonableness is highly deferential.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

The court based the sentence on permissible statutory factors. In essence, Guerrero-Rodríguez is requesting that this court reweigh the § 3553(a) factors, which is not within the scope of our review. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586. There is no indication that the district court gave improper weight to Guerrero-Rodriguez’s extensive history of immigration violations or any mitigating factors. See United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 807 (5th Cir. 2008).. Likewise, the degree of .the upward variance does not render the. sentence substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Key, 599 F.3d 469, 475-76 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 348-50 (5th Cir. 2008).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir, R, 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir, R. 47.5.4.
     