Cirilo Carrizalez-Rodriguez (Carrizalez) appeals the below-guidelines sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry. He argues, for the first time on appeal, that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to satisfy the objectives of sentencing. Because Carrizalez failed to object in the district court to the reasonableness of the sentence, review is for plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, *325 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009); United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007).

Carrizalez’s disagreement with the sentence imposed does not suffice to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to the below-guidelines sentence. See United States v. Murray, 648 F.3d 251, 258 (5th Cir. 2011); United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010). Consequently, Carrizalez has not demonstrated error, plain or otherwise. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423.

AFFIRMED.