Rosalino Salgado-Silver (Salgado) appeals the 85-month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States after deportation. The sentence was within the properly calculated guideline range; it is presumed reasonable. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006).

Salgado says that his sentence is too severe because illegal reentry is not violent and because his convictions were unreasonably double counted by being used to increase both his offense level and his criminal history score. As he concedes, his double-counting argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-30 & n. 12 (5th Cir. 2009). And his mere disagreement with the sentence does not rebut the presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010). Salgado merely asks this court to substitute his assessment of the sentencing factors for the district court’s assessment, which is contrary to the deferential review dictated by Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Salgado fails to show that his sentence was unreasonable or an abuse of discretion. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 46, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586; Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 351, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). The judgment is AFFIRMED.