Francisco Javier Barraza-Munoz appeals the sentence of 70 months of imprisonment imposed following his plea of guilty to one count of being unlawfully present in the United States following deportation, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Barraza-Munoz argues that in light of Gall v. United States, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007), and Kimbrough v. United States, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007), his sentence should be vacated and remanded. He asserts that this court’s precedent improperly restricted the district court’s ability to deviate from the *405 Guidelines absent extraordinary circumstances, a standard rejected in Gall. Barraza-Munoz also challenges the imposition of a 16-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, asserting that the Guideline is flawed and not entitled to deference.

At sentencing, Barraza-Munoz generally argued that the guidelines range was excessive for this offense and that he should receive a below-guidelines sentence, but he did not raise the specific challenges to his sentence that he raises here: that the sentencing regime was unduly restrictive and the 16-level enhancement flawed and not entitled to deference. Accordingly, we review those arguments for plain error. See United States v. Rodriguez-Rodriguez, 530 F.3d 381, 387-88 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 339 (5th Cir. 2008).

Barraza-Munoz fails to provide evidence sufficient to support either of his claims, and the record does not reveal any additional support. We follow our holdings on similar challenges in Rodriguez-Rodriguez and Campos-Maldonado, and we conclude that Barraza-Munoz has failed to demonstrate any reversible plain error.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.