PER CURIAM: Maurice Alonza Whitlock appeals from his conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base for which he received a 144-month sentence. Finding no error, we affirm. Whitlock’s sole contention on appeal is that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. Legal conelusions underlying the denial of a motion to suppress are reviewed de novo and factual findings are reviewed for clear error. Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996); United States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868, 873 (4th Cir.1992).
We have fully reviewed the materials submitted by the parties, including the transcript of the suppression hearing and the district court’s opinion stated from the bench, and find no error in the district court’s order denying Whitlock’s motion to suppress evidence. Accordingly, we affirm. 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 Whitlock has not raised a claim under United States v. Booker,-U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), or Blakely v.
Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). Indeed, he raises no challenge to his sentence. Thus, he has waived review of the sentence.