Sanchez-Rebollar’s arguments that the presumption of reasonableness should not apply and that the sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the applicable guideline is not supported by empirical data are 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. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, -U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 192, 175 L.Ed.2d 120 (2009). We have also rejected the argument that using a conviction to increase the offense level and to calculate criminal history is impermissible double counting. See Duarte, 569 F.3d at 529-31; see also Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d at 366-67.

The 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). He has not demonstrated that the district court’s imposition of a sentence at the bottom of the advisory guidelines range was error, plain or otherwise, or an abuse of discretion. See Puckett, 129 S.Ct. at 1429; see also Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

AFFIRMED.