Albert Williams appeals his sentence of 240 months of imprisonment for conspiracy to distribute cocaine base. 21 U.S.C. § 846. Williams argues that his sentence is unreasonable. We affirm.

We review the reasonableness of a criminal sentence for an abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 586, 594, 596-97, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). “[T]he party who challenges the sentence bears the burden of establishing that the sentence is unreasonable in the light of both [the] record and the factors in section 3558(a).” United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005). The weight allocated an individual factor in section 3553 “is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the district court.” United States v. Clay, 483 F.3d 739, 743 (11th Cir. 2007).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a sentence within the guideline range. Although Williams complains that the court failed to consider that he had assisted law enforcement and he had a history of substance abuse and various mental infirmities, the court stated that it had considered those facts. The court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that a sentence of 240 months of imprisonment served the statutory purposes of deterrence and adequate punishment. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 597. Williams’s sentence is reasonable.

Williams’s sentence is AFFIRMED.