After Jesus Silverio Jaquez-Diaz pleaded guilty to illegal reentry, the district court sentenced him to 70 months in prison, within the guidelines range of 70-87 months. Jaquez-Diaz appeals, arguing that the sentence is greater than necessary to satisfy the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We affirm.

Jaquez-Diaz contends that U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, which was used to enhance his sentencing range, overstates the risk of recidivism and danger posed by illegal reentry and results in double-counting of the same conviction used in determining his criminal history; that the guidelines range overstates the seriousness of his illegal reentry offense, which was simply an “international trespass;” that the 1992 drug conviction used for the § 2L1.2 enhancement was remote; that he had lived in the United States for 37 years, where he was married and had several children; that he had never been convicted of illegal reentry before; and that his wife has agreed to go with him to Mexico when he returns there. Thus, he challenges the sentence as excessive in light of several § 3553(a) factors, including his personal history and characteristics and the need to prevent him from committing future crimes.

We review sentences for reasonableness, employing an abuse-of-discretion standard, keeping in mind that a sentence within a properly calculated guidelines range is presumed to be reasonable. 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). After hearing Jaquez-Diaz’s arguments for a sentence below the guidelines range, the district court concluded that the guidelines range was appropriate, particularly in light of Jaquez-Diaz’s criminal history. We discern no abuse of discretion in that determination. To the extent that Jaquez-Diaz raises his double-counting and international trespass arguments for the first time on appeal, he has failed to demonstrate re *727 versible plain error. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 364-65 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 192, 175 L.Ed.2d 120 (2009).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.