Raul Garcia-Perez was sentenced to 60 months for illegally reentering the United States after having been convicted of an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b)(2). He appeals, challenging his sentence.

First, Garcia-Perez argues that the district court committed a procedural error when it imposed a sentence without considering all of the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) as required by United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). We disagree. In United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784 (11th Cir. 2005), we held that, “an acknowledgment by the district court that it has considered the defendant’s arguments and the factors in section 3553(a) is sufficient under Booker.” Id. at 786. In this case, the district court explicitly stated that he had considered the factors in § 3553 in imposing the sentence. (R.3-27 at 36.) Thus, the record supports a conclusion that the district court properly considered the § 3553(a) factors as required by Booker.

Second, Garcia-Perez argues that the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. The thrust of Garcia-Perez’s argument is that he is currently serving a state sentence of ten *403 years’ imprisonment, 1 and that this state sentence is sufficient to deter future criminal conduct and protect the community. Accordingly, Garcia-Perez argues that the district court should have imposed a 60-month sentence concurrent with his state sentence, and not consecutive to it. The district court imposed a sentence of 60 months, which is below the applicable guideline range of 70-87 months’ imprisonment. Considering Garcia-Perez’s lengthy criminal history, (R.3-27 at 30-31), the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a 60-month sentence to run consecutive to the undischarged state sentence.

We affirm the sentence imposed by the district court.

AFFIRMED.