Martin Meraz-Herrera (Meraz) appeals the sentence imposed following his illegal reentry conviction. He argues that he was entitled to either a downward departure pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K2.12 or a downward variance from the guidelines range because he was coerced into illegally reentering the United States as a result of threats made to his safety by a drug cartel in his native Mexico.

Post-Booker, 1 we review sentences for reasonableness in light of the factors set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Gall v. United, States, 552 U.S. 38, 128 S.Ct. 586, 594, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential abuse-of-diseretion standard. Id. at 597-98. The record discloses that the district court made an individualized assessment based on the circumstances of the case and Meraz’s history and characteristics and determined that a within-guidelines sentence was reasonable because (1) Meraz had a prior serious drug trafficking conviction, (2) the circumstances that purportedly drove Meraz to illegally reenter the United States were the consequences of his decision to engage in drug trafficking, and (3) the illicit drug activity in which Meraz engaged was more pervasive than his conviction reflected. See § 3553(a)(1). The district court additionally determined that a within-guidelines sentence would meet the goals of protecting the public and deterring Meraz from returning to the United States. See id. § 3553(a)(2)(A), (B), (C). In light of the preceding, Meraz has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness afforded his properly calculated guidelines sentence. See United States v. Newson, 515 F.3d 374, 379 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 2522, 171 L.Ed.2d 802 (2008).

AFFIRMED.