In May 2006, Guillermo Hernandez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation and in August 2006 was sentenced to 46 months of imprisonment, three years of supervised release, a $500 fine, and a $100 special assessment.

Hernandez argues for the first time on appeal that his sentence was unreasonable because the district court employed impermissible double counting and thus improperly calculated his guideline range when it increased both his offense level and his criminal history points based on the same prior alien smuggling conviction. 1 Citing United States v. Henry, 288 F.3d 657 (5th Cir. 2002), Hernandez further contends that his criminal history should not have been increased based on his prior alien smuggling conviction because it was an element of the illegal reentry offense.

The district court did not plainly err in sentencing Hernandez because the Guide *336 lines do not prohibit such double counting, because Henry is distinguishable from the instant case, and because this court has approved of such double counting under similar circumstances concerning U.S.S.G. § 2K1.2. See U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, comment. (n.6); Henry, 288 F.3d at 659, 664-65; United States v. Gaytan, 74 F.3d 545, 560 (5th Cir. 1996); United States v. Hawkins, 69 F.3d 11, 14-15 (5th Cir. 1995). Furthermore, Hernandez’s double counting argument fails to counter the rebuttable presumption that his properly calculated guideline sentence is reasonable. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554-55 (5th Cir. 2006). Nothing in the record compels the conclusion that the sentence imposed is unreasonable.

AFFIRMED.