Eddy Raul Zetino-Morales (Zetino) appeals the within-guidelines sentence that he received after he pleaded guilty to being in this country unlawfully 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 is unreasonable even if a presumption of reasonableness is applicable.

Zetino’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, 367 (5th Cir. 2009). Zetino’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 Zetino from committing future offenses — when imposing sentence. Zetino has failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness.

AFFIRMED.