Defendant-Appellant Jose Luis Ortega-Martinez appeals his within-guidelines 120-month sentence that followed his guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine. We affirm.

Ortega-Martinez contends that the district court committed a procedural error when it applied a two-level U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement for possessing a dangerous weapon in connection with a drug trafficking crime. We review this factual finding by the district court for clear error. See United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 396 (5th Cir. 2010). The unrebutted facts contained in the presen-tence report and factual resume show that Ortega-Martinez could reasonably have foreseen the possession of the firearm by his coconspirator at the residence used to distribute large amounts of cocaine. See United States v. Mergerson, 4 F.3d 337, 350 (5th Cir. 1993). As Ortega-Martinez is held responsible for all reasonably foreseeable acts of the conspiracy, we uphold the district court’s application of the enhancement. See id.

Ortega-Martinez argues that the sentence imposed was substantively unreasonable because the district, court failed to consider adequately his personal history and characteristics, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), and the availability of other sentences. As Ortega-Martinez did not object to the substantive reasonableness of the sentence in the district court, our review is limited to plain error. See United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007).

After considering the arguments of counsel regarding Ortega-Martinez’s likely deportation and the fact that his spouse is a United States citizen, the district court concluded that a sentence in “the middle” of the guideline range would be appropriate and would adequately address all the factors that the court should consider under § 3553(a). As Ortega-Martinez was sentenced within a properly calculated Guidelines range, his sentence is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness, which we see no reason to disturb. See United *285 States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 526 (5th Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED.