would be sufficient to reflect the seriousness of his
offense, promote respect for the law, and provide just punishment. In particular, he
explained that he entered the United States on this occasion to see his ailing
mother and not for any illegal purpose or financial gain. He also explained that as
a child he had been abandoned by his parents, grew up in poverty, and was
currently suffering from his own health problems, including high blood pressure,
diabetes, hepatitis C, and high cholesterol. And, he said, the absence of a fast-track
program in the Northern District of Illinois created an unwarranted sentencing
disparity.

       The district court rejected Rivera’s arguments and sentenced him at the
bottom of the guidelines range. In reaching its decision, the court explained that it
had considered that Riverahad illegally entered the United States several times
and had been deported on three prior occasions. The court also noted that, while in
this country in the past, Rivera had engaged in serious criminal conduct.

       Rivera contends that it was unreasonable to sentence him within the
properly calculated guidelines range. He argues that the district court gave
inordinate weight to the guidelines calculation, to the exclusion of all other factors
set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Moreover, he says, in determining his sentence the
court failed to consider mitigating factors, such as his troubled childhood and health
problems, and the lack of a fast-track program in the Northern District of Illinois.

       We review a defendant’s sentence for reasonableness. United States v.
Roche-Martinez, 467