
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Anthony Decarlos HARRIS, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 08-4785.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 20, 2009.
    Decided: May 13, 2009.
    
      Mitchell G. Styers, Banzet, Thompson & Styers, PLLC, Warrenton, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before MICHAEL and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Anthony Decarlos Harris pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm after having been previously convicted of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). Harris was sentenced to fifty-seven months of imprisonment and now appeals. His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), raising one issue but stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Harris was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but did not do so. We affirm.

In the Anders brief, counsel questions whether Harris’ sentence was substantively unreasonable. A sentence is reviewed for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 128 S.Ct. 586, 597, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); see also United States v. Seay, 553 F.3d 732, 742 (4th Cir.2009). The appellate court must first determine whether the district court committed any “significant procedural error,” Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 597, and then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, applying a presumption of reasonableness to a sentence within the guidelines range. United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 129 S.Ct. 476, 172 L.Ed.2d 341 (2008); see also Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 597; Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 345-59, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462-69, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness for within-guidelines sentence).

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and find that the district court committed no procedural error in calculating the sentence. Furthermore, we find that the district court’s within-guidelines 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 Harris’ conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Harris, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Harris 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 Harris.

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.  