Jaime Arturo Argueta-Lopez (Argueta) appeals from the 96-month sentence imposed by the district court following his conviction for illegal reentry; the sentence was the result of an upward variance from the applicable guidelines range of 46-57 months of imprisonment.

In reviewing the sentence imposed for reasonableness, this court must first determine whether the district court committed any procedural errors, including, inter alia, “failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence-including an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). If the district court’s decision is procedurally sound, this court will “consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” Id.

Even if Argueta sufficiently preserved his objection to the district court’s explanation for imposing the sentence at issue, we find that the district court, by citing Argueta’s extensive criminal history and recidivist tendencies, adequately explained its bases for the variance. See Id. at 50, 128 S.Ct. 586. Although Argueta argues that the sentence imposed was substantively unreasonable because the district court over-emphasized his criminal history and failed to recognize his cultural ties to the United States, the district court explained that it had fully considered the § 3553(a) factors, including the need to promote respect for the law and to deter Argueta from future criminal conduct, and this court “must give due deference to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance.” Id. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586. That this court “might reasonably have concluded that a different sentence was appropriate is insufficient to justify reversal of the district court.” Id.

AFFIRMED.