
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Saul MEDINA-TORRES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-50650
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    March 25, 2010.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    M. Carolyn Fuentes, Henry Joseph Bemporad, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Saul Medina-Torres appeals the 57-month sentence and three-year term of supervised release he received after he pled guilty to illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Medina-Torres argues that the Guidelines range of imprisonment he faced was greater than necessary to meet the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and that he should have been sentenced below the guidelines range. He cites Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007), and argues that this court should not accord the sentence a presumption of reasonableness because the illegal reentry Guideline is not supported by empirical data and national experience. Medina-Torres acknowledges that this argument is foreclosed by this court’s precedent but raises the issue to preserve it for further review.

The substantive reasonableness of Medina-Torres’s sentence is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir.2005). Medina-Torres’s argument that this court should not accord his within-Guidelines sentence a presumption of reasonableness is foreclosed. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.—, 130 S.Ct. 192, 175 L.Ed.2d 120 (2009); United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir.), cert, denied, — U.S.—, 130 S.Ct. 378, 175 L.Ed.2d 231 (2009). Further, Medina-Torres’s suggestion that he is a reformed, mature family man does not rebut the presumption that his sentence was reasonable. However, he has an extensive criminal history and has been removed from the United States to Mexico on numerous occasions. Given the obvious need for deterrence and punishment, his sentence was reasonable.

Medina-Torres’s argument that the district court abused its discretion by imposing a term of supervised release is also unavailing. Even if he is deported from the United States, supervised release is an additional potential sanction that might deter him from attempting to reenter the United States unlawfully. Because “adequate deterrence” and protection of the public are valid considerations in determining whether to impose a term of supervised release, Medina-Torres has not shown an abuse of discretion in the imposition of a supervised release term. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(c); United States v. Rodriguez, 558 F.3d 408, 411 (5th Cir.), cert denied, — U.S.—, 130 S.Ct. 394, 175 L.Ed.2d 268 (2009).

AFFIRMED 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cik. 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.
     