Francisco Hernandez-Marquez appeals his conviction for illegal reentry into the United States without permission of the United States Attorney General, after having previously been deported subsequent to a conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2000). Hernandez-Marquez’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), raising one issue but stating that he finds no meritorious grounds for appeal. Although notified of his right to do so, Hernandez-Marquez has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

In the Anders brief, counsel questions whether the district court abused its discretion in sentencing Hernandez-Marquez at the high end of the appropriately calculated guideline range. However, this court does not review a sentence imposed within a properly calculated guideline range. 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) (2000); United States v. Porter, 909 F.2d 789, 794 (4th Cir. 1990). Therefore, we “cannot address appellant’s challenge to the district court’s exercise of sentencing discretion.” Porter, 909 F.2d at 795.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Hernandez-Marquez’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such 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 the client. 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.