Guo Wei (Guo) appeals the 51-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation. He argues that the sentence, which is at the top of his advisory guidelines range, was unreasonable and resulted from the district court’s incorrect application of the Sentencing Guidelines and improper assessment of the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Guo has established no error in connection with the district court’s application of the Guidelines. Although the court did not expressly mention its consideration of the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, a mechanical recitation was unnecessary. See United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 707 (5th Cir. 2006). The court considered Guo’s apology and counsel’s arguments in mitigation, including Guo’s motive for returning to this country, the remoteness of his earlier conviction, his young age at the time of *811 the conviction, and the absence of any subsequent criminal history until the instant, nonviolent illegal-reentry offense. Guo’s belief that these mitigating factors should have been balanced differently does not suffice to disturb the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to his within-guidelines sentence on appellate review. See United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 528 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir. 2008) (upholding the presumption of reasonableness of a within-guidelines sentence where the appellant argued that the Guidelines overstated the seriousness of his offense and that his motive for returning and cultural assimilation justified a sentence below the guidelines range).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.