Josué Hernandez-Chaparro appeals his sentence following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Hernandez-Chaparro was sentenced within his advisory guidelines range to 57 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. He contends that his sentence is not entitled to a presumption of reasonableness because U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, the guideline applicable to violations of § 1326, is not empirically based and double counts a defendant’s criminal history. As acknowledged by HernandezChaparro, this argument is 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).

Hernandez-Chaparro also contends that his sentence should be vacated as substantively unreasonable because it was based in part on § 2L1.2 and was greater than necessary to meet the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Regarding § 3553(a), Hernandez-Chaparro contends that his sentence overstated the seriousness of his illegal reentry offense and failed to properly reflect his personal history and characteristics. The substantive reasonableness of Hernandez-Chaparro’s sentence is reviewed for plain error because he did not object on that ground in the district court. See United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010) (citing United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007)). Hernandez-Chaparro’s appellate arguments fail to establish any error in his sentence, plain or otherwise. See Duarte, 569 F.3d at 529-31; United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006).

AFFIRMED.