#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Charles Emmanuel PARRISH, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 09-5233.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 30, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 3, 2010.

Benjamin D. Porter, Morrow Alexander Porter & Whitley, PLLC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael A. DeFranco, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*815PER CURIAM:

Charles Emmanuel Parrish pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to dealing in firearms without a license, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(1)(A), 928(a) (2006). The district court sentenced Parrish to thirty-three months’ imprisonment. Counsel filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questions the reasonableness of Parrish’s sentence. Parrish was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Finding no error, we affirm.

Appellate review of a sentence, “whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range,” is for abuse of discretion. *Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 41, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). This review requires consideration of both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. *Id.*at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586. This court must assess whether the district court properly calculated the advisory Guidelines range, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. *Id.*at 49-50, 128 S.Ct. 586; *see also United States v. Lynn,*592 F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir.2010) (“[A]n individualized explanation must accompany *every*sentence.”); *United States v. Carter,*564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir.2009). We may presume a sentence imposed within the properly calculated Guidelines range is reasonable. *United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza,*597 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir.2010).

We have reviewed the record with these standards in mind. Our examination leads us to conclude that Parrish’s sentence is proeedurally and substantively sound. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the chosen sentence.

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