**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 4530** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. JOSE SALAZAR MERCADO , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro
. William L. Osteen, Jr. , District Judge. ( 1:10

- cr - 00300

- WO

- 1 )

Submitted : November 30, 2011 Decided: January 12, 2012

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, Mireille P. Clough, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Winston

- Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee
. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
J ose Salazar Mercado pled guilty, with the benefit of a written plea agreement, to distributing fifty grams or more of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amoun t of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. A. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) ( West 1999 & Supp. 20 11 ) , and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (2006)
. The district court sentenced Mercad o to the sixty

- month mandatory minimum sentence for each offense, to be served consecutively
. Mercado’s attorney submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether Mercado’s sentence is reasonable. Althoug h Mercado received notice of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, he did not do so. Because we find no meritorious grounds for appeal, we affirm the district court’s judgment. This court reviews a sentence for reasonableness applying an abuse

- of

- discretion standard. Gall v. United
States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). In determining the procedural reasonableness of a sentence, we consider whether the district court properly calculated the Guidelines range, treated the Guidelines as advisory, consid ered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. Finally,3 we review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, “examin[ing] the totality of the circum stances.” United
States v. Mendoza

- Mendoza , 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). Because Mercado did not request a sentence different than the sentence ultimately imposed, our review is for plain

error. United States v. L ynn , 592 F.3d 572, 580 (4th Cir. 2010); see United States v. M assenburg , 564 F.3d 337, 342

- 43 (4th Cir. 2009) (discussing plain error standard). Here, the district court followed the necessary procedural steps in sentencing Mercado, properly calculating the Guidelines range, considering the § 3553(a) factors, and sentencing Mercado to the very sentence he requested

— the mandatory minimum sentence on each count
. As to substantive reasonableness, “ [a] statutorily required [mandatory minimum] sentence . . . is per se reasonable
. ” United States v. Farrior , 535 F.3d 210, 224 (4th Cir. 2008)
. Hence, we conclude that the 120

- month sentence imposed by the district court was reasonable. In accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues f or appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment . This court requires that counsel inform Mercado in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Mercado requests that a petition be filed, b ut counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then4 counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Mercado
. W e 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