
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tony Marichal SHARP, a/k/a TJ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-4426.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 11, 2015.
    Decided: March 19, 2015.
    Wayne Buchanan Eads, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tony Marichal Sharp appeals the 480-month sentence imposed by the district court after Sharp pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 280 grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2012), and to aiding and abetting the discharge of a firearm in connection with a drug distribution offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c), 2 (2012). Sharp’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that he has found no meritorious grounds for appeal but raising a potential issue regarding the reasonableness of Sharp’s sentence. Although informed of his right to do so, Sharp has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. We affirm.

Sharp asserts on appeal that his sentence is too long. Our review of the record on appeal leaves us without doubt that there is no procedural or substantive error in the district court’s imposition of a sentence of 480 months’ imprisonment. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) (discussing review of sentences); United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.) (providing that sentence within properly calculated Guidelines range is presumed reasonable), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 421, 190 L.Ed.2d 293 (2014).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record for any meritorious grounds for appeal and have found none. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Sharp, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Sharp requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Sharp. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.  