UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cynthia Beasley O'BRIANT, Defendant-Appellant, 167 F. App'x 354

PER CURIAM: Cynthia Beasley O’Briant appeals her twenty-seven month sentence imposed following a guilty plea to embezzlement, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 656 (2000). We affirm. O’Briant contends her sentence was not reasonable. After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), courts must calculate the appropriate guideline range, consider the range in conjunction with other relevant factors under the guidelines and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000), and impose a sentence. If a court imposes a sentence outside the guideline range, the court must state its reasons for doing so.

United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 547 (4th Cir.2005). We review such a sentence for reasonableness. See Booker, 125 S.Ct. at 764-67. Here, the district court’s sentencing was appropriate under Hughes. Because O’Briant’s sentence was at the low end of the advisory guidelines range and below the statutory maximum for the offense, we conclude her sentence was reasonable. Accordingly, we affirm O’Briant’s sentence. 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 The statutory maximum for 18 U.S.C. § 656 (2000) is thirty years. See 18 U.S.C. § 656 (2000).