1 The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, Chie f Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-3248

___________ United States of America, * * Plaintiff - Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Southern District of Iowa. * Rex Layne Bassinger, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Defendant - Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: May 18, 2006 Filed: June 6, 2006

___________ Before BYE, HANSEN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
Rex Bassinger pleaded guilty to posse ssing pseudoephedrine for the purpose of manufacturing methamphetamine and was sentenced to 240 months of imprisonment. Bassinger appealed and we remanded for resentencing pursuant to United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Upon remand, the district court 1 sentenced Bassinger below the applicable advisory guideline range to 216 months of imprisonment and three years of supervisedrelease. Bassinger now appeals, arguing-2- the district court erred by applying vari ous enhancements based upon facts neither admitted nor found by a jury and by imposi ng an unreasonable sentence. Bassinger does not argue the district court committed f actual error. Accord ingly, our review of the court’s interpretation a nd application of the guidelin es is de novo, United States v. Mashek , 406 F.3d 1012, 1017 (8th Cir. 2005), and we must determine whether the court abused its discretion in imposing an unreasonable sentence. United States v. Dalton , 404 F.3d 1029, 1032 (8th Cir. 2005).
Bassinger’s judicial factfinding claim is w ithout merit. When a district court treats the guidelines as advisory, it commits no Sixth Amendment error by finding facts necessary to apply an enhancement. SeeUnited States v. Salter , 418 F.3d 860, 862 (8th Cir. 2005), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 1399 (2006). Indeed, we have held “the sentencing judge is entitled to find all the f acts appropriate for determining either a Guidelines sentence or a non-Guidelines sentence.” United States v. Haack , 403 F.3d 997, 1002 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 276 (2005). Accordingly, the district court committed no error when calculating the applicable guideline range.
Bassinger next argues the district co urt imposed an unreasonable sentence. Bassinger’s sentence was twenty-four mont hs below the statutory maximum and presumptively reasonable guideline range. See United States v. Lincoln , 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 840 (2005). The sentencing transcript establishes the district court consider ed the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and imposed a lower nonguideline sentence after consideration of those factors. Bassinger has not presented any evidence or argument th at the district court based its sentence upon an irrelevant factor, failed to consider a relevant factor, or made a clear error of judgment so as to prejudice him. See Haack , 403 F.3d at 1004. Accordingly, we conclude the ultimate sentence, which is two years less than the statutory maximum and the effective advisory guideline range, is reasonable.

We therefore affirm the district court.

______________________________