Saul Corona-Majatca pleaded guilty to being an alien found in the United States illegally after having previously been deported. Corona-Majatca argues that the district court erred in departing upwardly from the Sentencing Guidelines because his criminal history was in fact accurately represented in the presentence report and within the heartland of the guidelines. Corona-Majatca also argues that the district court failed to conduct a proper upward departure by not explaining the methodology it used to arrive at his sentence.

After United States v. Booker, 548 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), we review sentences for reasonableness. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 43, 163 L.Ed.2d 76 (2005). We review the district court’s decision to depart upwardly and the extent of that departure for abuse of discretion. United States v. Zuniga-Peralta, 442 F.3d 345, 347 (5th Cir. 2006). “An upward departure by a district court is not an abuse of discretion if the court’s reasons for departing 1) ‘advance the objectives set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)’ and 2) ‘are justified by the facts of the case.’ ” Id. (citations omitted).

The district court departed under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3. At sentencing, the district court evaluated the guideline range and articulated its reasons for deviating from the range. The court discussed Corona-Majatca’s criminal history in some detail and why it believed that his criminal history was underrepresented. We do not require the district court “to go through a ritualistic exercise in which it mechanically discusses each criminal history category it rejects en route to the category that it selects.” United States v. Lambert, 984 F.2d 658, 663 (5th Cir. 1993). In this case, the record “makes abundantly clear, through the court’s adoption of the PSR, its statements at sentencing and its Statement of Reasons, the reasons for an upward departure.” Zuniga-Peralta, 442 F.3d at 347. The amount of the upward departure, i.e., 19 months, was not an abuse of discretion in light of CoronaMajatca’s criminal history. See id. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.