Jose Miguel Sanchez appeals the 32-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegally reentering the United States after having been removed following a felony conviction, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1). Sanchez argues that his sentence, which was an upward departure from the advisory guidelines range, is substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to achieve the sentencing objectives of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Sanchez has failed to demonstrate that his 32-month sentence is substantively unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). The district court’s stated reasons for its decision to impose a departure takes into consideration Sanchez’s history and characteristics; advances the objectives of promoting respect for the law, providing deterrence, and protecting the public from further crimes of the defendant; and are justified by the facts of the case. See § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(A)-(C). Additionally, though Sanchez lists a set of factors he contends the court did not consider, he presents no convincing argument that any *348 of these is substantial enough that it should have been weighted more heavily. Further, the 32-month sentence imposed represents a five-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.