
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lionel HOLLOWAY, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-5024.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 4, 2011.
    Decided: May 25, 2011.
    James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Joanna Silver, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, John W. Sippel, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Lionel Holloway appeals the fifteen year sentence imposed by the district court upon his plea of guilty to one count of felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). The Armed Career Criminal Act mandated a sentence of at least fifteen years because Holloway had three previous convictions for serious drug offenses. 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) (2006). We affirm.

Holloway asserts a conflict between mandatory minimum sentences and the general sentencing statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006). Section 3553(a) requires a court to “impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to achieve the enumerated purposes of sentencing. Holloway argues that a fifteen year sentence is greater than necessary to accomplish those purposes in his case, and thus the district court violated § 3553(a) in imposing the minimum sentence required by 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1).

The Sentencing Reform Act, of which § 3553(a) is a part, dictates that a should be sentenced in accordance with its provisions to achieve the purposes of § 3553(a)(2) “[ejxcept as otherwise provided.” 18 U.S.C. § 3551(a) (2006). Courts have opined that mandato-ry minimum sentences are “otherwise provided” and thus do not conflict with § 3553(a)’s parsimony clause. See United States v. Sutton, 625 F.3d 526, 529 (8th Cir.2010); United States v. Kellum, 356 F.3d 285, 289 (3d Cir.2004). Other courts, while not directly ruling on the alleged tension, have similarly rejected that § 3553(a) authorizes from statutorily-mandated sentences. United States v. Cirilo-Muñoz, 582 F.3d 54, 55 (1st Cir.2009) (per curiam), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 1103, 175 L.Ed.2d 918 (2010); United States v. Franklin, 499 F.3d 578, 585-86 (6th Cir.2007); United States v. Roberson, 474 F.3d 432, 436-37 (7th Cir.2007). In addressing a related issue, we have stated that “a district court has no discretion to impose a sentence outside of the statutory range established by Congress for the offense of conviction.” United States v. Robinson, 404 F.3d 850, 862 (4th Cir.2005). We see little need to expound further on this

Holloway also claims procedural and substantive unreasonableness with his We review a sentence under a abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The first step in this review requires us to inspect for procedural reasonableness by ensuring that the district court committed no procedural errors, such as improper-ly calculating the Guidelines range, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, or failing to adequately explain the United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 837-38 (4th Cir.2010). We then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed, taking into account the totality of the circumstances. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586. On appellate review, a sentence within a Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir.2007).

Holloway complains that the district court did not explain its rationale for the sentence in adequate depth. After proper-ly calculating the Guidelines sentence, the sentencing court recounted specific aspects of Holloway’s circumstances, including his employment history, witness testimony in his support, and the length of time since his last conviction. The court set forth a sufficiently developed rationale to support Holloway’s sentence. Moreover, a at the minimum term prescribed by law is per se reasonable. United States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d 210, 224 (4th Cir.2008). Thus, Holloway’s unreasonableness fail.

Accordingly, we affirm the sentence by the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.  