Jose Torres-Duenas appeals the sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation. The seventy-one-month sentence was within the properly calculated guidelines range and is presumed reasonable. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). Torres-Duenas’s contention that the presumption of reasonableness should not apply because the applicable guideline is not founded on empirical data is foreclosed. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009). His disagreement with the district court’s weighing of the sentencing factors does not rebut the presumption of reasonableness. United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010). His contention that a federal court may not order a sentence to run consecutively to a yet-to-be-determined state sentence is foreclosed by Setser v. United States, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 1463, 1466-73, 182 L.Ed.2d 455 (2012).

The district court imposed a reasonable sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 351, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). Because there was no error, plain or otherwise, with regard to the sentence, the judgment is AFFIRMED.