Fransisco Javier Lira-Trejo appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United States. He was sentenced to 46 months in prison, within the applicable guidelines range of 46 to 57 months.

*346 Lira-Trejo contends that U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 is not empirically based and results in excessive sentences; that the age of the burglary conviction used to enhance his sentence renders his sentence unreasonable; that his sentencing range overstates the seriousness of his illegal reentry offense, which he asserts is simply an international trespass; and that the district court did not take into account his history and characteristics. We review sentences for reasonableness, employing a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, and we presume that a sentence within a properly calculated guidelines range is reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-50, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

The lack of empirical basis for § 2L1.2 does not necessarily render a within-guidelines sentence unreasonable. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 530 (5th Cir. 2009). In a series of unpublished opinions, we have rejected the argument that the staleness of a defendant’s prior conviction renders his within-range sentence unreasonable. See United States v. Gonzalez-Valencia, 401 Fed.Appx. 888, 888-89 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v. Ortiz-Arriaga, 355 Fed.Appx. 849, 849-50 (5th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2133, 176 L.Ed.2d 752 (2010); United States v. Gonzales-Torres, 288 Fed.Appx. 927, 928-29 (5th Cir. 2008).

We likewise reject Lira-Trejo’s contention that unlawful reentry — a federal felony carrying significant criminal penalties— is merely an international trespass. See United States v. Aguirre-Villa, 460 F.3d 681, 683 (5th Cir. 2006). Nor do we discern any improper weighing of the other factors cited by Lira-Trejo, including his personal history and characteristics. See United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008). In short, the district court considered Lira-Trejo’s arguments and the facts of the case before concluding that a within-guidelines sentence was appropriate. Lira-Trejo’s mere disagreement with the court’s assessment of those factors is insufficient to rebut the presumption that the sentence is reasonable. See United States v. Gomez-Heirera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED.