
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Loren Timothy INGLE, Defendant— Appellant.
    No. 08-4206.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 31, 2008.
    Decided: Aug. 7, 2008.
    David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carli-na, for Appellant. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Loren Timothy Ingle pled guilty to felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). He was sentenced to fifteen months’ imprisonment and a three-year term of supervised release. On appeal, his attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), identifying no meritorious grounds for appeal but raising the issue of whether the sentence imposed was reasonable. Although informed of his right to file a supplemental pro se brief, Ingle has not done so. Finding no error, we affirm.

This court reviews the sentence imposed by the district court for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, — U.S. —, 128 S.Ct. 586, 597, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); see also United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir.2007). When sentencing a defendant, a district court must: (1) properly calculate the guideline range; (2) treat the guidelines as advisory; (3) consider the factors set out in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp.2008); and (4) explain its reasons for selecting a sentence. Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473. We presume that a sentence within the properly calculated sentencing guidelines range is reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir.2007); see also Rita v. United States, — U.S. —, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462-69, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007) (upholding application of rebuttable presumption of correctness of within-guideline sentence).

Here, the district court followed the appropriate procedures in sentencing Ingle, and we find no abuse of discretion in its imposition of the 15-month sentence. We therefore find that Ingle’s sentence is reasonable. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Ingle’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Ingle, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Ingle 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 Ingle. 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.  