Alfredo Vela-Ontiveros (Vela) appeals the 24-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of importation of a controlled substance and possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. Vela argues that the sentence is unreasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. He contends that the court did not adequately take into account his personal history, namely that he had a bachelor’s degree, had worked as a teacher in Mexico, was a legal permanent resident of the United States, and had no criminal record. He asserts that he committed this offense because a series of medical emergencies undercut his ability to support his family and that he is unlikely to pose any future danger to the public.
Following United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), sentences are reviewed for reasonableness in light of the sentencing factors in § 3553(a). See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519-20 (5th Cir.2005). A sentence imposed within the properly-calculated guidelines range is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007); United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir.2006). Review is for an abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 586, 597, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).
At sentencing, the district court stated that it had considered Vela’s circumstances, the circumstances of the case, the Guidelines, the statutory factors, and the presentence report in arriving at a sentence that it considered to be sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to achieve the purposes of the statute. The court, noting that it had 40-60 sentencings that week alone, specifically found that Vela’s reasons for committing this offense were similar to the reasons offered by others. *337The court recognized that Vela was well educated and had been a school teacher, but determined that this was not a mitigating circumstance because he had the privilege of being well educated and was capable of making good choices, but instead had made very bad decisions and risked putting drugs on the street that could have gone to children.
The district court imposed the lowest sentence under the advisory guidelines range. Vela has not shown that this was an abuse of discretion. See Rita, 127 S.Ct. at 2470.
AFFIRMED.