Candelario Trujeque-Novelo appeals his 54-month, above-Guidelines sentence of imprisonment following his guilty plea to illegal reentry into the United States following previous deportation. Trujeque-Novelo argues that that the 54-month sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to achieve the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Specifically, Trujeque-Novelo contends that the district court assigned too much weight to his dated criminal history, failed to consider his avoidance of non-immigration offenses since 1995, and did not adéquately consider his age of 65.

We review the district court’s non-Guidelines sentence for abuse of discretion under the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Gerezano-Rosales, 692 F.3d 393, 400 (5th Cir. 2012). The record reflects that the district court properly considered the § 3553(a) factors. The district court acknowledged Trujeque-Nove-lo’s argument that some of his convictions were dated and noted that his age is a factor it usually considers in favor of mitigation. The district court, nevertheless, determined that an upward variance was appropriate to address Trujeque-Novelo’s underrepresented criminal history category and “pattern of recidivism.” Trujeque-Novelo had 15 prior convictions, including two convictions for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and seven immigration-related convictions. Two lengthy sentences for prior convictions of illegal reentry following deportation did not deter Trujeque-Novelo from committing the same crime again. Under the totality of the circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing this sentence.

AFFIRMED. .