Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Angie Renee Morton pleaded guilty to obtaining oxycodone by fraud, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(a)(3) (2012). The district court sentenced Morton to 18 months of imprisonment, followed by 1 year of supervised release, and she now appeals. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), questioning whether the sentence is reasonable. Morton was advised of her right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. Finding no error, we affirm.

We review a sentence for reasonable' ness, applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); see also United States v. White, 810 F.3d 212, 229 (4th Cir.), cert. denied. — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 1833, 194 L.Ed.2d 837 (2016). In so doing, we examine the sentence for “significant procedural error,” including “failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [ (2012) ] factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586. We then review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. “Any sentence that is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable,” White, 810 F.3d at 230 (internal quotation marks omitted).

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the sentence is both procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district court properly calculated the advisory Guidelines range and sufficiently explained the sentence. In addition, Morton’s within-Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable and we conclude that Morton has not rebutted that presumption.

We have examined the entire record in accordance with the requirements of An-ders and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. This court requires that counsel inform Morton, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Morton 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 Morton. 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 in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED