Joaquin Hernandez-Holguin (Hernandez) appeals the 30-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 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 was greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of sentencing listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2).

Hernandez’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). Hernandez’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) when imposing his sentence. Hernandez has failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness.

AFFIRMED.