
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sergio RIOS-ZAVALA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-15849
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    July 20, 2011.
    Michelle Thresher Taylor, Esq., Donald L. Hansen, Robert E. O’Neill, David Paul Rhodes, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    John Thomas Kingston, Attorney at Law, Valrico, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before MARCUS, PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Sergio Rios-Zavala appeals his sentence of a year and a day for reentering the United States illegally. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1325(a)(1); 1326(a), (b)(1); 1329. Rios-Zavala argues that his sentence is unreasonable. We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by sentencing Rios-Zavala within the guideline range. Although Rios-Zava-la was permitted to return voluntarily to Mexico in 2003 after being arrested for his role in a conspiracy to commit forgery, border patrol agents again apprehended Rios-Zavala after he returned to the United States illegally in August 2004, November 2004, December 2004, June 2007, and in June 2010. The district court considered “all the [sentencing] factors,” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and reasonably determined that a sentence that exceeded one year was necessary to address Rios-Zava-la’s repeated illegal reentries, and would provide adequate punishment, promote respect for the law, and deter future similar misconduct. Rios-Zavala argues that the district court “never seriously considered” his dire economic circumstances, but the district court “recognize[d] and un-derst[oo]d that things [were] bad in Mexico [and Rios-Zavala] came here trying to earn a living.” The district court nevertheless found that Rios-Zavala’s poverty did not outweigh his criminal history and the need to deter him from entering the United States yet again. Rios-Zavala’s sentence is reasonable.

Rios-Zavala’s sentence is AFFIRMED.  