
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Luis SAGUN-VILLAREAL, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 15-50246, 15-50247
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    March 10, 2016.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Reginald Van Wade, Esq., Del Rio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Luis Sagun-Villareal pleaded guilty to illegal reentry following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.and was sentenced within the guidelines range to 57 months of imprisonment, to be followed by three years of supervised release. The district court also revoked Sagun-Villareal’s supervised release on a prior conviction and imposed a consecutive sentence within the advisory range of 8 months.

On appeal, Sagun-Villareal ■ argues that the court committed procedural error by failing to articulate reasons for ordering that the sentences run consecutively. He also challenges the substantive reasonableness of his sentence, arguing that his revocation sentence should not have been imposed consecutively to the sentence for the new conviction. Finally, he challenges the application of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 in calculating his guidelines range because he asserts that the Guideline is not empirically based. We review these newly raised arguments for plain error. See United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir.2007).

Sagun-Villareal’s claim that the district court failed to provide adequate reasons for imposing a consecutive revocation sentence is not supported by the record. The district court provided reasons, citing to Sagun-Villareal’s criminal history. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c); United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 262 (5th Cir.2009). With regard to Sagun-Villareal’s arguments that the two sentences combined to produce an unreasonable total prison term, this court has rejected similar arguments. See United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 808-09 (5th Cir.2008). Additionally, Sagun-Villareal’s argument challenging the application of § 2L1.2 has been consistently rejected. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-30 (5th Cir.2009); United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 212 (5th Cir.2008).

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