Jesus Antonio Argumedo-Cardiel (Argu-medo) appeals the 16-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends that the sentence was greater than necessary to accomplish the sentencing goals set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and was therefore substantially unreasonable. *221 Specifically, Argumedo argues that the advisory guideline range was too severe because U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 gives heavyweight to the defendant’s prior convictions in calculating the offense level, effectively double-counting the defendant’s prior convictions. He also argues that the advisory guideline range was too severe to account for his non-violent illegal reentry offense and that his motive for reentering was a factor that mitigated the seriousness of his crime. We review the “substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” 1

This court has rejected the argument that using a prior conviction to both increase the offense level and calculate the criminal history is impermissible “double-counting.” 2 The district court considered Argumedo’s request for a sentence at the bottom of the applicable guideline range, and it ultimately determined that a sentence at the top of that range was appropriate based on the circumstances of the case and the § 3553(a) factors. Argume-do’s assertions that the non-violent nature of his offense and his motive for reentering the United States justified a lower sentence are insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. 3 As Argume-do has not demonstrated the district court’s imposition of a sentence at the top of the guideline range was an abuse of discretion, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.