
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos TORRES, a/k/a Sombra, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-4778.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Sept. 29, 2011.
    Decided: Oct. 4, 2011.
    
      Claire J. Rauscher, Executive Director, Federal Defenders of Western North Carolina, Inc., Ross H. Richardson, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ann Magee Thompkins, United States Attorney, Kevin Zolot, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Thomas Richard Ascik, Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorneys, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Carlos Torres pled guilty to robbery affecting interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (2006), and possession of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(l)(A)(ii) (2006). The district court sentenced him to a total of 120 months imprisonment. Torres’ counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that, iri counsel’s view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether Torres’ sentence was reasonable. Torres was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

We have reviewed Torres’ sentence and conclude that it was properly calculated and that the sentence imposed was reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); see United States v. Llamas, 599 F.3d 381, 387 (4th Cir.2010). The district court followed the necessary procedural steps in sentencing Torres, appropriately treated the Sentencing Guidelines as advisory, properly calculated and considered the applicable Guidelines range, and weighed the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors in light of Torres’ individual characteristics and history. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the chosen sentence. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 41, 128 S.Ct. 586; United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir.2007) (applying appellate presumption of reasonableness to within Guidelines sentence).

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