Manuel Salinas-Soto appeals the within guidelines sentence imposed following his guilty plea to illegal reentry following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that his guidelines sentence is greater than necessary to satisfy the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and is therefore unreasonable. Specifically, Salinas-Soto contends that his sentence is unreasonable because his sentence is the result of impermissible double counting, does not reflect that his current illegal reentry conviction is not a crime of violence and posed no danger to others, and does not reflect that he illegally reentered because he wanted to help his wife and children. Salinas-Soto also argues that this court should not afford his sentence a presumption of reasonableness because U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 is not empirically based.

Salinas-Soto’s challenge to the presumption of reasonableness is foreclosed. See 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). We have also rejected the argument that using a prior conviction to increase the offense level and in calculating criminal history is impermissible “double counting.” See United States v. Calbat, 266 F.3d 358, 364 (5th Cir. 2001).

Salinas-Soto’s sentence was properly calculated, and he has not rebutted the presumption that the district court sentenced him to a reasonable within-guidelines sentence. See United States v. Campos -Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554-55 (5th Cir. 2006). The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.