
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Anthony HOPE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-5187.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 19, 2007.
    Decided: May 17, 2007.
    
      Michael S. Naehmanoff, Acting Federal Public Defender, Gerald T. Zerkin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Matthew C. Ackley, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before MICHAEL and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Michael Anthony Hope pled guilty to distribution of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841, and the district court sentenced him as a career offender to 172 months in prison. Hope timely appealed, arguing that his sentence as a career offender was unreasonable and greater than necessary to comply with 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

After the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), this court reviews a sentence to determine whether the district court has correctly calculated the advisory guideline range and has considered the range, as well as the factors set out § 3553(a), and whether the sentence is reasonable. United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir. 2005) . A sentence within the properly calculated advisory guideline range is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 126 S.Ct. 2309, 164 L.Ed.2d 828 (2006).

Hope concedes that his sentence was within the correctly calculated guideline range of 151 to 188 months. Therefore, the sentence is presumptively reasonable. While Hope argues that the district court failed to adequately address the factors enumerated in § 3553(a), we conclude that the district court considered the applicable § 3553 factors and did not impose a sentence that was greater than necessary to comply with § 3553. See United States v. Davenport, 445 F.3d 366, 370 (4th Cir. 2006) .

Accordingly, we affirm Hope’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.  