Jose Juan Sandoval appeals from his conviction of illegal reentry following deportation. He contends that his sentence is not entitled to a presumption of reasonableness because it was calculated pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, which he argues is not supported by empirical evidence. He further contends that his sentence is unreasonable even if a presumption of reasonableness is applicable.

Sandoval’s contention that his sentence is not entitled to a presumption of reasonableness because the relevant guideline is not supported by empirical evidence is without merit. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th Cir. 2009). Sandoval’s sentence is presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). Moreover, the district court addressed the factors set out at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)— particularly the need to deter Sandoval from committing future offenses—when imposing the sentence. Sandoval has failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness.

AFFIRMED.