
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Wilmer Julian VILLANUEVA-TURCIUS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-50053
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Sept. 1, 2015.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Bradford W. Bogan, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Maureen Scott Franco, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Wilmer Julian Villanueva-Turcius appeals the 57-month, within-guidelines sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegally reentering the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He challenges only the substantive reasonableness of his sentence, arguing that the sentence is greater than necessary to achieve the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). In support of his argument, he asserts that his illegal reentry offense is essentially an international trespass and that the illegal reentry Guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, is problematic because it is not empirically based and results in the double counting of his criminal history. He also asserts that the sentence is greater than necessary to promote respect for the law, to provide adequate deterrence, and to protect the public, and that it fails to adequately account for his personal history and characteristics.

A sentence within a properly calculated guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir.2009). Villanueva-Turcius contends the presumption should not be applied but concedes the issue is foreclosed and raises it only for further- possible review. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 530-31 (5th Cir.2009).

This court has rejected challenges to the substantive reasonableness of a sentence based on the same international-trespass and double-counting arguments raised in •this appeal. See United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 212 (5th Cir.2008). Moreover, the record does not reflect that the sentence fails to “account for a factor that should receive significant weight, ... gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or ... represents a clear error of judgment in balancing sentencing factors.” Cooks, 589 F.3d at 186. Villa-nueva-Turcius’s dissatisfaction with the district court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) sentencing factors is insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir.2010).

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.
     