Humberto Pina-Valles challenges his 41-month sentence, imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United States. He contends the sentence is unreasonable under the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) because it: overstated the seriousness of his offense; failed to provide just punishment for the offense; resulted from an unjust double-counting of his prior drug-trafficking offense; and failed to account for his personal history, characteristics, and motive for unlawfully reentering the country.

Preserved objections, as in this instance, to the substantive reasonableness of a sentence are reviewed under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 564 (5th Cir. 2008).

Our court has previously rejected the contention that a sentence imposed pursuant to Sentencing Guideline § 2L1.2 is unreasonable because it resulted from double-counting. E.g., United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009). Moreover, the record demonstrates the district court: considered Pina’s arguments for a sentence below his Guidelines sentencing range; concluded Guideline § 2L1.2 provided a reasonable sentencing range; and imposed a sentence at the bottom of that range. Pina’s disagreement with the sentence does not suffice to rebut the presumption of reasonableness given it. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d at 565-66 (presumption of reasonableness when sentence within properly calculated Guidelines range).

AFFIRMED.