
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Aaron Michael DOHOGN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-4615
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 29, 2016
    Decided: August 10, 2016
    
      Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Duberstein, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Clifton Thomas Barrett, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Aaron Michael Dohogn appeals his conviction and the sentence imposed after he pled guilty to possession of a machine gun, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) (2012). 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 questioning whether Dohogn’s sentence is reasonable in light of Dohogn’s challenge to the sentence enhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) (2014). Dohogn was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so.

Counsel correctly concedes that United States v. Barlow, 811 F.3d 133, 137-40 (4th Cir. 2015), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 2041, 195 L.Ed.2d 239 (2016), precludes Dohogn’s claim that his North Carolina offense of breaking and entering a motor vehicle is not a felony for purposes of the Sentencing Guidelines. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not err in its calculation of the Guidelines range and imposition of a within-Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014) (“Any sentence that is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.”).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record for any meritorious grounds for appeal and have found none. Accordingly, we affirm Dohogn’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Dohogn, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Dohogn 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 Dohogn. 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  