Defendant-Appellant Oscar Mejia Diaz pleaded guilty to one count of illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2) and was sentenced to a 29-month term of imprisonment, near the top of the applicable sentencing guidelines range of 24 to 30 months. He argues on appeal that his sentence is greater than necessary to satisfy the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and that the sentencing court failed to consider his estranged wife’s poor health and the needs of their children. He properly acknowledges that his argument that the illegal reentry guideline is “penologically flawed” and lacks an empirical basis is foreclosed by circuit precedent. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th Cir. 2009).

When, as here, the district court has imposed a sentence within a properly calculated guidelines range, the sentence is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 351, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). Review is for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51-52, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Mejia Diaz has not shown that the sentencing court considered any irrelevant or improper factors or that the court made a “clear error of judgment” in weighing the § 3553(a) factors. United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, he has failed to demonstrate that his *492 sentence is unreasonable. See Rita, 551 U.S. at 347, 351, 127 S.Ct. 2456.

AFFIRMED.