Phillip Chandler appeals his sentence of 36 months of imprisonment following the revocation of his supervised release. Chandler argues that his sentence is unreasonable. We affirm.

Chandler’s sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable. In 2005, Chandler pleaded guilty to conspiring to manufacture more than 100 marijuana plants, 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(b)(1)(B), and while he was on supervised release, Chandler and his brother cultivated 58 marijuana plants. The district court considered Chandler’s guideline range of 12 to 18 months of imprisonment, but found that “[a] thirty-six month ... sentence” was necessary to address “the nature of [Chandler’s] new criminal conduct,” his commission of a “second felony drug offense,” the “serious[ness] of [his] crime,” his lack of “respect for the law,” and to “ensure deterrence[,] and ... protect the public from future criminal conduct” by Chandler, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(e), 3553(a). “[A]t revocation the [district] court should sanction primarily the defendant’s breach of trust,” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual, ch. 7, pt. A, introductory cmt. 3(b), and the district court reasonably determined that Chandler’s decision to return to the drug trade while under supervised release war *788 ranted an upward variance to the maximum statutory sentence, see United States v. Brown, 224 F.3d 1237, 1242-43 (11th Cir. 2000). The district court did not abuse its discretion.

Chandler’s sentence is AFFIRMED.