Gregorio Zuniga-Holguin appeals the 64-month sentence imposed in connection with his guilty-plea conviction for being found in the United States following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Zuniga-Holguin argues that his sentence is greater than necessary to meet the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and that he should have been sentenced below the guidelines range. He argues that his personal history and characteristics and his motive for reentering the United States support a sentence below the guidelines range. Zuniga-Holguin cites Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007), and argues that this court should not accord the sentence a presumption of reasonableness because the illegal reentry guideline is not supported by empirical data. Zuni-ga-Holguin acknowledges that this argument is foreclosed by this court’s precedent but raises the issue to preserve it for further review.

The substantive reasonableness of Zuni-ga-Holguin’s sentence is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). “A discretionary sentence imposed within a properly calculated guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, -— U.S.-, 129 S.Ct. 328, 172 L.Ed.2d 236 (2008).

Zuniga-Holguin’s argument that this court should not accord his within-guidelines sentence a presumption of reasonableness because the applicable guideline is not supported by empirical data is foreclosed. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 378, 175 L.Ed.2d 231 (2009); United States v. Mon-dragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 192, 175 L.Ed.2d 120 (2009).

Zuniga-Holguin’s assertions regarding his personal history and characteristics and his motive for reentering the United States are insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir. 2008). Zuniga-Holguin has not demonstrated that the district court’s imposition of a sentence at the bottom of the guidelines range was an abuse of discretion.

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.