Erik Daniel Bejarano-Ordonez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends that the 46-month within-guidelines sentence is substantively unrea *255 sonable because it was greater than necessary to satisfy the sentencing goals set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). According to Bejarano-Ordonez, the guidelines range was too high to fulfill § 3553(a)’s goals because U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 is not empirically based and effectively double counts a defendant’s criminal record. He also argues that the guidelines range overstated the seriousness of his non-violent reentry offense and failed to account for his personal history and characteristics, specifically, his cultural assimilation and motive for returning to the United States.

Although Bejarano-Ordonez acknowledges that we apply plain error review when a defendant fails to object to the reasonableness of the sentence imposed in the district court, he seeks to preserve the issue for further review. Because Bejara-no-Ordonez did not object to the substantive reasonableness of his sentence in the district court, plain error review applies. See United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007).

“When the district court imposes a sentence within a properly calculated guidelines range and gives proper weight to the Guidelines and the ... § 3553(a) factors, we will give great deference to that sentence and will infer that the judge has considered all the factors for a fair sentence set forth in the Guidelines in light of the sentencing considerations set out in § 3553(a).” United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “A discretionary sentence imposed within a properly calculated guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.” Id.

Bejarano-Ordonez contends that the presumption of reasonableness should not apply to sentences calculated under § 2L1.2 because the Guideline is not empirically based. He acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by circuit precedent but seeks to preserve the issue for further review. As Bejarano-Ordonez concedes, we have consistently rejected his “empirical data” argument. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366-67 & n. 7 (5th Cir. 2009). We have also rejected arguments that double-counting necessarily renders a sentence unreasonable, see Duarte, 569 F.3d at 529-31, and that the Guidelines overstate the seriousness of illegal reentry because it is simply a nonviolent international trespass offense, see United States v. Aguirre-Villa, 460 F.3d 681, 683 (5th Cir. 2006).

The district court considered Bejarano-Ordonez’s mitigation arguments and the § 3553(a) factors. The district court ultimately concluded that a sentence at the bottom of the guidelines range was sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to satisfy the sentencing goals set forth in § 3553(a). Bejarano-Ordonez’s assertions that § 2L1.2’s lack of an empirical basis, the double-counting of his prior conviction, the non-violent nature of his offense, his cultural assimilation, and his motive for reentering justified a lower sentence are insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 526 (5th Cir. 2008). Therefore, Bejarano-Ordonez has failed to show that his 46-month within-guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable, and there is no reversible plain error. See Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d at 339. The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.