
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Luis BERRONES-ZAVALA, also known as Jose Berrones, also known as Jose L. Barones, also known as Ociel Jaramillo-Macedo, also known as Osiel Jaramillo-Macedo, also known as Jose Barones, also known as Jose Berrones-Zavala, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-51123
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    July 31, 2012.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Henry Joseph Bemporad, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, El Paso, TX, Donna F. Coltharp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KING, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Jose Luis Berrones-Zavala (Berrones) appeals the 63-month sentence of imprisonment imposed following his guilty plea conviction of illegal reentry into the United States after deportation. He contends that his within-guidelines sentence was greater than necessary to satisfy the sentencing goals set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and, thus, it was substantively unreasonable. Specifically, Berrones contends that the district court did not conskb er his young age and overemphasized his use of aliases and criminal history. Ber-rones also argues that this court should not afford his sentence a presumption of reasonableness because U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 is not empirically based.

As Berrones concedes, his challenge to the presumption of reasonableness is foreclosed. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th Cir.2009). Here, the district court considered Berrones’s arguments for a lower sentence and made an individualized sentencing decision based on the facts of the case in light of the § 3553(a) factors. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-50, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Ber-rones’s sentence is presumed to be reasonable because it was within his guidelines range, and he has not shown sufficient reason for this court to disturb that presumption. See United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir.2010). Thus, he has not shown error, plain or otherwise, with respect to the sentence imposed. See Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d at 360-61.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     