Jaime Pantoja Carretero appeals the 70-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegally reentering the United States after having been deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Carretero challenges the district court’s decision to depart upward pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3. He argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to achieve the sentencing objectives of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Because Carretero did not object to his sentence in the district court, review is for plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, -, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 1429, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009). To demonstrate plain error, Carretero must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. Id. If he makes such a showing, we have the discretion to correct the error but only if it “ ‘seriously affeet[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ ” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 736, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993)).

Carretero has failed to demonstrate that his 70-month sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court’s stated reasons for its decision to impose a departure advances § 3553(a)’s objectives of promoting respect for the law and providing deterrence and are justified by the facts of the case. See United States v. Zuniga-Peralta, 442 F.3d 345, 347-48 (5th Cir. 2006). Further, Carretero’s 70-month sentence represents a 19-month upward departure from the top of his advisory guidelines range and is within the statutory maximum. See § 1326. We have affirmed far more substantial departures than the one imposed in this case. See e.g., United States v. Smith, 417 F.3d 483, 491-93 & n. 40 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Saldana, 427 F.3d 298, 312 (5th Cir. 2005).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.