Mark Carey Alexander, Jr. appeals his 97-month sentence for simple bank robbery. Alexander contends that his within-Guidelines sentence is greater than necessary to achieve the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) because it overstates the seriousness of his offense. Specifically, Alexander argues that the district court should not have considered the firearm-related conduct of which he was acquitted by a jury in sentencing him at the top of the Guidelines range. In addition, Alexander contends that his sentence is too harsh *307 because he must first serve a 20-year Texas sentence before his federal sentence begins.

A sentence within a properly calculated Guidelines sentencing range is presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 1930, 176 L.Ed.2d 397 (2010). Here, Alexander concedes that his sentence is reviewed for plain error because he did not object to the sentence imposed in the district court. See United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 259-60 (5th Cir. 2009). Alexander’s arguments are insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness, even under the ordinary standard of review. See Cooks, 589 F.3d at 186. It follows that he has failed to demonstrate plain error.

AFFIRMED.