ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

After René Madrid-Apodaca pleaded guilty to illegally reentering this country after a prior deportation, he and the government agreed to a sentence of between two and eight months. In considering the various sentencing factors prescribed by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), however, the district court judged a nine month sentence more appropriate. The court emphasized, among other things, Mr. Madrid-Apoda-ca’s record of recidivism and the need for deterrence — noting that Mr. Madrid-Apo-daca had already been removed for illegally entering this country five times, and that an eight month sentence he received for a prior reentry failed to deter this reentry. Before us, Mr. Madrid-Apodaca has filed a 49-page brief arguing that the district court’s announced sentence, one month more than he agreed to, is substantively unreasonable. But a district court’s substantive judgment at sentencing is reviewed on appeal only under a highly deferential abuse of discretion standard — a standard this court deems presumptively satisfied where, as here, the district court’s sentence itself falls below the range recommended by the advisory guidelines. See United States v. Gutierrez-Gonzalez, 271 Fed.Appx. 786, 788 (10th Cir. 2008); cf. United States v. Kristi, 437 F.3d 1050, 1055 (10th Cir. 2006). After carefully reviewing Mr. Madrid-Apodaca’s submission, we cannot conclude he has borne his burden of overcoming that presumption and we thus affirm.