Danny Ray Bradham, Sr. appeals from his sentence—12-months’ imprisonment without credit for time served and an additional 30-day civil penalty—imposed following his guilty-plea conviction of theft of United States property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641.

Although post -Booker, the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory only, and a properly preserved objection to an ultimate sentence is reviewed for reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard, the dis *241 trict court must still properly calculate the Guidelines-sentencing range for use in deciding on the sentence to impose. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). In that respect, for issues preserved in district court, its application of the Guidelines is reviewed de novo; its factual findings, only for clear error. E.g., United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). Bradham does not claim procedural error. He contends only that the sentence imposed is substantively unrea-^ sonable because it is greater than necessary to satisfy the purposes of sentencing.

Because Bradham’s sentence falls within the applicable statutory and Guidelines-sentencing range, we afford it a presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006); see also Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007) (upholding the application of the presumption of reasonableness to sentences within a properly calculated Guidelines range). We decline his invitation to re-weigh the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors because “the sentencing judge is in a superior position to find facts and judge their import under § 3553(a) with respect to a particular defendant”. United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 339 (5th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). Bradham fails to rebut the presumption that his sentence is substantively reasonable.

AFFIRMED.