Victor Manuel Dominguez-Godinez appeals the within-guidelines, 46-month sentence imposed for his guilty plea conviction of illegal reentry. He contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable and greater than necessary to satisfy the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.

We review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence for an abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Dominguez-Godinez’s arguments *280 fail to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that we apply to his within-guidelines sentence. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Canipos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008). The district court, who was “in a superior position to find facts and judge their import under § 3553(a),” was presented with Dominguez-Godinez’s mitigating arguments but concluded that a sentence within the guidelines range was appropriate. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d at 339. As Dominguez-Godinez concedes, his argument that the presumption of reasonableness should not be applied to his sentence because U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 lacks an empirical basis is foreclosed. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 530-31 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Mondragon-Santi-ago, 564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th Cir. 2009).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.