UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gerald Lyn SYDNOR, Jr., a/k/a Gerald Lyn Sydnor, II, Defendant-Appellant, 610 F. App'x 251

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gerald Lyn Sydnor, Jr., appeals his sixty-six-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012). On appeal, Sydnor’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Sydnor’s sentence was reasonable.

Sydnor was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but did not file one. Finding no meritorious grounds for appeal, we affirm. We review the reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion. United States v. Howard, 773 F.3d 519, 527-28 (4th Cir.2014). We first review for procedural error, such as improper calculation of the Guidelines range, failure to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) sentencing factors, selecting a ’ sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failure to adequately explain the sentence. Howard, 773 F.3d at 528.

Absent any procedural error, we review for substantive reasonableness under the totality of circumstances. Id. Sentences within a properly calculated Guidelines range are presumed reasonable, and this presumption “can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(

a) factors.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 421, 190 L.Ed.2d 293 (2014). The record reveals that Sydnor’s sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district court properly calculated the Guidelines range, provided the parties an opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence, allowed Sydnor an opportunity to allocute, considered the § 3553(

a) factors, made an individualized assessment in imposing a within-Guidelines sentence, and adequately 'explained its reasoning. Thus, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion m imposing sentence. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Sydnor, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.

If Syd-nor 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 Sydnor. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED.