the Court said nothing of the applicability of the presumption of reasonableness. Moreover, the appellate presumption’s continued applicability to § 2L1.2 sentences is supported by this court’s decision in United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338-39 (5th Cir.2008), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 129 S.Ct. 328, 172 L.Ed.2d 236 (2008), which involved a similar challenge to § 2L1.2. The appellate presumption is therefore applicable in this case. The district court heard Infante’s arguments for a non-guidelines sentence based on his particular circumstances and concluded that a sentence within the guidelines range was appropriate in light of those considerations. Infante has not demonstrated that his sentence was an abuse of discretion by the district court. See Rita, 127 S.Ct. at 2469 (<HOLDING>); Alonzo, 435 F.3d at 554. Accordingly, the
holding that the district court which had considered the guidelines but found an upward variant sentence necessary given the defendants previous violations did not abuse its discretion when it imposed a 24month sentence instead of a guidelines range sentence of 3 to 9 months incarceration holding that a sentencing judge who had listened to the defendants arguments in support of a belowguidelines sentence provided sufficient explanation for rejecting those arguments when he found that the defendants circumstances were insufficient to warrant a sentence lower than the guidelines range holding that the defendants sentence was reasonable when the district court considered the parties arguments and provided a reasoned basis for its choice of sentence holding that the defendants sentence was within the guidelines range and therefore presumptively reasonable holding that explanation that sentencing judge was persuaded by the arguments at the hearing and in the sentencing memos that he should not depart downward from the guidelines range was sufficient