
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Aristeo Melgarejo LOPEZ, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 07-5034.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Sept. 11, 2008.
    Decided: Sept. 15, 2008.
    
      David B. Freedman, Grumpier Freedman Parker & Witt, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Aristeo Melgarejo Lopez pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. He was sentenced to 144 months of imprisonment. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), alleging that there are no meritorious claims on appeal but raising the issue of whether his sentence was reasonable. For the reasons that follow, 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 United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir.2007). When sentencing a defendant, a district court must: (1) properly calculate the Sentencing Guidelines 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 Guidelines range is reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir.2007); see 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-Guidelines sentence).

Here, the district court followed the appropriate procedures and sentenced Lopez within the middle of his advisory sentencing range. Thus, we find no abuse of discretion in its imposition of the 144-month sentence, and therefore find that Lopez’s sentence is reasonable. In accordance with the requirements of Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client 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 the client. 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.  