
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Tony James BENNETT, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 05-4427.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 31, 2006.
    Decided: Feb. 15, 2006.
    Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, Acting United States Attorney, Steven I. Loew, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Tony James Bennett appeals his thirty-month sentence imposed after he pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). He contends on appeal that his sentence is unreasonable in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). We affirm.

Bennett maintains that his sentence is unreasonable because his possession, while illegal, was harmless to the public. Although the sentencing guidelines are no longer mandatory, Booker makes clear that a sentencing court “must consult [the] Guidelines and take them into account when sentencing.” 125 S.Ct. at 767 (Breyer, J., opinion of the Court). The court should consider the sentencing range along with the other factors identified in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005), and then impose a sentence. See United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir.2005). The sentence must be “within the statutorily prescribed range and ... reasonable.” Id. at 546-47 (citations omitted).

In sentencing Bennett, the district court considered the properly calculated guideline range and the factors in § 3553(a). Because the court sentenced Bennett within the advisory guideline range and within the ten-year statutory maximum, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2), we conclude that Bennett’s sentence is reasonable. Accordingly, we affirm the sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED  