Miguel Martinez pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) (2000). He was sentenced to 262 months of imprisonment. Martinez’ attorney on appeal has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), concluding there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the district court erred in applying the sentencing guidelines as mandatory in violation of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Because the district court in fact appropriately applied the guidelines as advisory in sentencing Martinez post-Booker, and advised him of the advisory nature of the guidelines at the plea hearing, we find counsel’s claim merit-less.

Martinez was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Martinez’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 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 the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in *999 the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.