Christopher Laronn Brown appeals the sentence imposed after we affirmed his conviction, vacated the sentence and remanded to the district court for resentenc-ing. Brown contends the district court erred by enhancing his sentence based on facts not found by the jury or admitted by him. Finding no error, we affirm.

Brown’s sentence was vacated and remanded because the district court used the guidelines in a mandatory fashion. The sentence was not imposed in accordance with the rules announced in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). At resentencing, the district court properly calculated the guidelines range of imprisonment, considered the statutory sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000), and imposed a sentence within the guidelines range of imprisonment.

We review a sentence to determine whether it was within the statutory range of imprisonment and reasonable. United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 433 (4th Cir. 2006). Post-Booker, the district court is still required to consider the sentencing guidelines range of imprisonment and the pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing Commission. The court is also required to consider the factors under § 3553(a). Id. at 432. The court determines the appropriate guidelines range of imprisonment by making factual findings. Id. A sentence that falls within the properly calculated range of imprisonment is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness. Id. at 433.

We find the sentence reasonable. Accordingly, we affirm the sentence. We deny Brown’s motion to dismiss counsel and appoint new counsel. 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.