
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Aaron ARTIS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-4261.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Oct. 31, 2006.
    Decided: Jan. 17, 2007.
    
      Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Diana H. Cap, Research and Writing Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E.B. Holding, Acting United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Jennifer May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Aaron Artis pled guilty, without a plea agreement, to one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 922(g)(1), 924 (West 2000 & Supp.2006). The district court sentenced Artis to seventy-six months’ imprisonment. We affirm.

On appeal, Artis argues that his sentence is unreasonable. However, Artis’s sentence was within the guideline range of sixty-three to seventy-eight months and below the ten-year statutory maximum sentence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(a)(2). Because the district court appropriately treated the guidelines as advisory, and properly calculated and considered the guideline range and the relevant factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp.2006), we find the sentence reasonable. See United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.) (holding that a sentence within the properly calculated guideline range is presumptively reasonable), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 2309, 164 L.Ed.2d 828 (2006). To the extent that Artis argues that this court should revisit its holding in Green, one panel of this court may not overrule a decision of another panel. See, e.g., Scotts Co. v. United Indus. Corp., 315 F.3d 264, 271-72 n. 2 (2002).

Accordingly, we affirm Artis’s 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  