Heather Servantez appeals the 126-month prison terms the district court 1 imposed after she pleaded guilty to two drug offenses under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846. For reversal, she argues that her sentence is unreasonable and the district court committed a clear error of judgment by sentencing her at the top of the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, because the court gave undue weight to her criminal history without taking into account the petty nature of most of the offenses.

When the applicable Guidelines range is undisputed, as it is here, we consider whether the sentence is unreasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 261-62, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). The presumption of reasonableness accorded a sentence within the Guidelines range, see Rita v. United States,U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462-68, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007), may be rebutted by showing that the district court failed to consider a factor that should have received significant weight, gave significant weight to an irrelevant factor, or otherwise com *614 mitted a clear error of judgment, see United States v. Davidson, 437 F.3d 737, 741 (8th Cir. 2006). The record supports that the district court properly considered only relevant factors, including Servantez’s extensive criminal history and her role in the conspiracy, and did not commit a clear error of judgment in choosing a sentence at the top of the Guidelines range. Thus, we conclude that the sentence is not unreasonable.

Accordingly, we affirm.