
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Alex ENAMORADO-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-51108
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Sept. 18, 2009.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Henry Joseph Bemporad, Federal, Public Defender Federal Public Defender’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Alex Enamorado-Lopez (Enamorado) appeals his 57-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that the sentence is greater than' necessary to meet the sentencing goals outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and specifically asserts that, in light of Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007), the presumption of reasonableness does not apply to his within-guidelines sentence because the illegal reentry guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, is flawed in that it is not supported by “empirical data and national experience.”

We have consistently rejected Enamorado’s “empirical data” argument, concluding that Kimbrough does not question the presumption of reasonableness and does not require district or appellate courts to independently analyze the empirical grounding behind each individual guideline. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-30 (5th Cir.2009); United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th Cir.2009), pet. for cert. filed, (June 24, 2009) (No. 08-11099). Because the sentence imposed by the district court was within the advisory guidelines range of 57 to 71 months of imprisonment, it is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir.2006); United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 129 S.Ct. 328, 172 L.Ed.2d 236 (2008). Enamorado has not shown sufficient reason for this court to disturb that presumption. See Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d at 339.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     