
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Victor Manuel DOMINGUEZ-GODINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-50703
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 27, 2015.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Donna F. Coltharp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Maureen Scott Franco, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     