Fidencio Espinoza-Castillo (Espinoza) pleaded guilty to one count of illegal reentry following previous deportation. The district court imposed a sentence of 48 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. Espinoza argues that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court imposed an above-guidelines sentence based on its personal opinion that such a sentence was warranted.

The 48-month sentence challenged by Espinoza was the result of an upward variance from the Guidelines. See United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 349 (5th Cir. 2008). Following United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), our review of sentences is for reasonableness in light of the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 518-19 (5th Cir. 2005). The Government contends that Espinoza did not preserve the specific argument he now raises on appeal and that plain error review thus applies. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009). We need not decide the appropriate standard of review because, as explained below, the sentence is reasonable under either plain error review or the abuse-of-discretion standard. See United *342 States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 525 (5th Cir. 2008).

The record indicates that the district court properly considered the § 3553(a) factors. The 48-month sentence reflected the seriousness of Espinoza’s offense, the need to promote respect for the law, the need to provide just punishment, and the need to protect the public from future crimes. The sentence imposed “was reasonable under the totality of the relevant statutory factors.” Brantley, 537 F.3d at 349 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 807 (5th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).