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.