
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Dennis Geovanny MARQUEZ-CORDOBA, a/k/a Angelo Docavo Tie, a/k/a Dennis Marquez, a/k/a Alfredo Gomez, a/k/a Dennis Geovanny Drakkar, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 05-5077.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 17, 2006.
    Decided: June 13, 2006.
    Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Angela Hewlett Miller, Office of the United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Dennis Geovanny Marquez-Cordoba pled guilty to one count of reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2000). The district court sentenced Marquez-Cordoba to ninety months of imprisonment. On appeal, counsel filed an Anders brief, in which he states that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but suggests that the district court imposed a sentence that was unreasonable because it was greater than necessary to serve the ends of justice. Marquez-Cordoba was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not filed a brief. We affirm.

The district court sentenced Marquez-Cordoba within the applicable advisory Guideline range and well below the twenty-year statutory maximum set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). We cannot conclude that, under these circumstances, Marquez-Cordoba’s sentence is unreasonable. See United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir.2006); United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.) (finding that sentence imposed within properly calculated advisory Guideline range is presumptively reasonable), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 2309, 164 L.Ed.2d 828 (2006).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Marquez-Cordoba’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Marquez-Cordoba, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Marquez-Cordoba requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Marquez-Cordoba. 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. 
      
      
        Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
     