Victor Rios-Martinez (Rios) was convicted of one count of illegal reentry into the United States, and the district court sentenced him to serve 46 months in prison and a three-year term of supervised release. Rios filed a timely notice of appeal.

On appeal, Rios challenges only the sentence imposed. He maintains that his *898 within-guidelines sentence should not be presumed reasonable because U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 is not empirically based and is thus flawed under Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 109-10, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007). He acknowledges, however, that we have rejected this argument. 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).

Rios also argues that the 46-month sentence imposed was greater than necessary to achieve the goals of sentencing set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He points out his difficult childhood and his problem with alcohol. He also maintains that the prior conviction that resulted in a 16-level enhancement under § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A) was too temporally remote to warrant such an increase in his sentencing range.

Rios’s arguments concerning the district court’s weighing of his mitigating sentencing factors amount to a disagreement with the district court’s weighing of these factors and the appropriateness of his within-guidelines sentence. This disagreement does not suffice to show error in connection with his sentence. See United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir. 2008). Rios has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to his within-guidelines sentence, nor has he shown that his sentence was unreasonable. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554-55 (5th Cir. 2006); United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519-20 (5th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.