Raul Arvid Cantu appeals his 37-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that the presumption of reasonableness does not apply to his within-guidelines sentence because the illegal reentry guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, is not supported by empirical data. Cantu also argues that the sentence is greater than necessary to meet the sentencing goals outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He contends that a sentence below the guidelines is sufficient because the 16-level enhancement was based on a 25-year old conviction; his personal belongings were stolen from his apartment after his arrest; and he was rehabilitated.

As Cantu concedes, his argument that the presumption of reasonableness does not apply because § 2L1.2 is not empirically-based is foreclosed by 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), and United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338-39 (5th Cir. 2008).

Cantu’s substantive reasonableness argument is likewise unavailing. Cantu’s arguments fail to overcome the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to his •within-guidelines sentence. See Duarte, 569 F.3d at 529-31. Furthermore, Cantu’s belief that the mitigating factors presented for the district court’s consideration at sentencing should have been balanced differently is insufficient to disturb the presumption. See United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED.