
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ruben VALDEZ-ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-50874
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 26, 2010.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Philip J. Lynch, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Henry Joseph Bemporad, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before SMITH, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Ruben Valdez-Ortiz (Valdez) pleaded guilty to attempted illegal reentry and per-sonating another when applying for admission to the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and 18 U.S.C. § 1546. He now appeals the reasonableness of his within-guidelines sentence. Because Valdez did not object to the reasonableness of the sentence in the district court, review is limited to plain error. See United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007).

According to Valdez, his sentence is unreasonable because the 16-level enhancement set forth in U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b) is not supported by empirical data. This argument is foreclosed, as is his argument that the presumption of reasonableness should not be applied to his within-guidelines sentence. 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).

Valdez’s assertions regarding his personal history and circumstances and his motive for reentering the United States are insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir.2008). The record reflects that the district court considered the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Valdez has not demonstrated that the district court’s imposition of a sentence within the advisory guidelines range was error, plain or otherwise.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     