
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roosevelt Alonzo COOPER, a/k/a Zo, a/k/a Chico, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-4536
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 31, 2016
    Decided: June 9, 2016
    T. Micah Leddy, Leddy Law Firm, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. John David Rowell, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Roosevelt Alonzo Cooper appeals his sentence of 120 months of imprisonment for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 5 kilograms or more of cocaine and 280 grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846 (2012). Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but raising the reasonableness of Cooper’s sentence. We affirm.

We review Cooper’s sentence for reasonableness “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v. McCoy, 804 F.3d 349, 351 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007)). This review entails appellate consideration of both its procedural and its substantive reasonableness. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586. “A statutorily required sentence ... is per se reasonable....” United States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d 210, 224 (4th Cir. 2008), abrogated on other grounds by Rodriguez v. United States, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 1609, 191 L.Ed.2d 492 (2015).

We have reviewed the record and conclude that the court properly calculated the Sentencing Guidelines range, treated the Guidelines as advisory rather than mandatory, gave the parties an opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, selected a sentence not based on clearly erroneous facts, and sufficiently explained the chosen sentence. Furthermore, Cooper’s sentence of 120 months is at the statutory minimum. Therefore, we conclude that Cooper’s sentence is reasonable.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Cooper’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Cooper, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Cooper 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 Cooper.

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  