Jose Luis Perez-Perez challenges his 27-month sentence, imposed for his conviction for illegal reentry following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The sentence falls within the advisory sentencing range based on the Sentencing Guidelines.

Perez contests the substantive reasonableness of his sentence, claiming it is greater than necessary to accomplish the sentencing objectives of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Along that line, he claims the court: failed to account for his personal circumstances and those for his offense, maintaining he returned to the United States to earn income for his family in Mexico; arid erred in applying Guideline § 2L1.2 (illegal-reentry Guideline) because it double-counts his prior conviction, and fails to account for the nonviolent nature of his offense, which, he classes as merely an “international trespass.”

Although post-jBooker, the Guidelines are advisory only, and a properly preserved objection to an ultimate sentence is reviewed for reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard, the district *435 court must still properly calculate the advisory Guidelines-sentencing range for use in deciding on the sentence to impose. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 88, 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).

Although Perez challenges the application of the presumption of reasonableness as applied to his within-Guidelines sentence under § 2L1.2, he acknowledges the issue is foreclosed and raises it only to preserve it for possible future review. E.g., United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366-367 (5th Cir. 2009). Our court has likewise rejected his “double-counting” claim, United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-30 (5th Cir. 2009), and “international trespass” claim, United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 212 (5th Cir. 2008).

After considering the reasons Perez advanced for a sentence below the advisory Guidelines sentencing range, the court found a sentence within that range was appropriate. His contentions amount to a disagreement with the court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and, therefore, do not rebut the presumption of reasonableness. E.g., United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.