Juan Carlos Aguilar-Osorto was convicted of illegal reentry and received a within-guidelines sentence of 41 months of imprisonment followed by a three-year term of supervised release. On appeal, he argues that his sentence was substantively unreasonable because it was greater than necessary to satisfy the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). As Aguilar-Osorto raised this objection below, our review is for abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

*198 A sentence imposed within a properly-calculated guidelines range is accorded a presumption of reasonableness and is rebutted only if the district court fails to consider a significant factor, gives weight to an irrelevant factor, or clearly errs in balancing the sentencing factors. United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). Aguilar-Osorto’s empirical basis challenge to the presumption of reasonableness is foreclosed. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009). We have rejected the argument that a sentence imposed pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 is greater than necessary to meet the § 3553(a) goals as a result of any double counting inherent in that Guideline, see Duarte, 569 F.3d at 529-31, as well as the argument that illegal reentry is merely an international trespass offense, see United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 212 (5th Cir. 2008). Aguilar-Osorto’s remaining arguments are nothing more than a disagreement with the district court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) factors, which is insufficient to show the court abused its discretion. See United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 807 (5th Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED.