Adan Hernandez-Nunez pleaded guilty of harboring an alien for financial gain, and he received an above-guidelines sentence of fifty months in prison and three years’ supervised release. He contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court’s decision that an above-guidelines sentence was warranted was grounded in conduct that was already factored into the guidelines calculations.

If the district court has imposed a sentence that deviates from the guidelines range, this court evaluates whether the sentence “unreasonably fails to reflect the statutory sentencing factors” set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 708 (5th Cir. 2006). “A non-Guideline sentence unreasonably fails to reflect the statutory sentencing factors where it (1) does not account for a factor that should have received significant weight, (2) gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or (3) represents a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors.” Id.

The district court gave due consideration to the § 3553(a) factors and committed no error when balancing them. See id. Hernandez-Nunez’s theory that the court should have balanced the § 3553(a) factors differently “is not a sufficient ground for reversal.” See United States v. Malone, 828 F.3d 331, 342 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 526, 196 L.Ed.2d 408 (2016).

AFFIRMED.