Merlin Despeaux appeals from the 262-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine.

Despeaux argues that he did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his right to appeal his sentence and thus the district court erred in denying his motion to withdraw the appeal waiver. If allowed to proceed with his appeal, he argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a downward departure or variance. The Government counters that Despeaux’s challenge to his sentence is barred by the waiver provision contained in his plea agreement providing, inter alia, that Despeaux waives his right to directly appeal his sentence unless it exceeds the statutory maximum. We pre-termit discussion of the waiver issue, which does not affect our jurisdiction, because Despeaux is not entitled to relief on the merits. See United States v. Story, 439 F.3d 226, 230-31 (5th Cir. 2006).

We are without jurisdiction to consider Despeaux’s argument that the district court erred in denying his motion for a downward departure as there is no indication in the record that the district court *370 was under the mistaken impression that it could not depart. See United States v. Hernandez, 457 F.3d 416, 424 (5th Cir. 2006). Nevertheless, we have jurisdiction to review the district court’s decision to impose a sentence within the guidelines range. See United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008).

A sentence imposed within a properly-calculated guidelines range is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). The district court imposed a sentence at the bottom of the properly-calculated guidelines range after considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Des-peaux has failed to show that the sentence is unreasonable. The sentence is AFFIRMED.