Erick Resendez-Rodriguez appeals his 71-month sentence following his guilty plea conviction of illegal reentry following deportation after conviction of an aggravated felony. He argues that his within-guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to satisfy the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.

It is unclear whether Resendez’s failure to formally object to the reasonableness of the sentence after it was imposed results *303 in plain error review. See United States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 526 n. 1 (5th Cir. 2008) (reviewing under the abuse of discretion standard of review where the arguments were presented to the district court). We need not decide the issue because Resendez is not entitled to relief even if his sentence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.

The record reflects that the district court considered the advisory guidelines range of imprisonment, Resendez-Rodriguez’s arguments for a more lenient sentence, and the § 3553(a) factors before determining that a within-guidelines sentence was appropriate. “[A] sentence within a properly calculated Guideline range is presumptively reasonable.” 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). Resendez-Rodriguez has not shown that the district court failed to give proper weight to his arguments or to any particular § 3553(a) factor. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). He has failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to his within-guidelines sentence. See Alonzo, 435 F.3d at 554-55; United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED.