Vicente Flores-Cruz appeals the 77-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry of a deported alien. He argues that the advisory guidelines range of 77-96 months of imprisonment was too severe, the illegal reentry Guideline is not empirically based and double-counts a defendant’s criminal record, and the presumption of reasonableness of a within guidelines sentence should not apply. Flores-Cruz asserts that because his prior drug conviction was used to *394 increase his criminal history score and to increase his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, the resulting guidelines range was greater than necessary to achieve the sentencing goals in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), particularly with respect to deterring future crime and protecting the public, and that this affects the fairness and integrity of the criminal proceeding.

We review for plain error because Flores-Cruz did not raise these issues in the district court. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 192, 175 L.Ed.2d 120 (2009). As Flores-Cruz concedes, this court has rejected the argument that there is no empirical support for the illegal reentry Guideline in § 2L1.2 and, therefore, that a presumption of reasonableness should not apply to a within guidelines sentence under this provision. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009), ce rt. denied, — U.S. --, 130 S.Ct. 378, 175 L.Ed.2d 231 (2009); Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d at 366-67. Likewise, this court has rejected the assertion that using a prior conviction to determine the applicable offense level as well as a defendant’s criminal history score results in impermissible double-counting. Duarte, 569 F.3d at 529-31.

Because the district court imposed a sentence within a properly calculated guidelines range, it is presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 328, 172 L.Ed.2d 236 (2008); see also Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-47, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). The district court determined that, although many of Flores-Cruz’s convictions were remote in time, his recent DWI offenses indicated that he was still having problems with alcohol and that his criminal behavior had not stopped. Accordingly, Flores-Cruz’s assertion that the sentence imposed was greater than necessary to meet § 3553(a)’s goals of deterring future crime and protecting the public is without merit and is insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. See Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d at 339; United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir. 2008). He has failed to establish that his sentence was the result of error, much less plain error.

AFFIRMED.