Jimmie Lee Gray appeals the sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to a drug charge. Mr. Gray argues under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), that the district court’s finding on the contested drug quantity increased his sentence in violation of the Sixth Amendment.

Because the district court in sentencing Mr. Gray did not view the Guidelines as mandatory, there was no Booker error. See Booker, 125 S.Ct. at 750-52, 756-57, 764 (Sixth Amendment problem resulting from mandatory nature of Guidelines remedied by making Guidelines advisory). To the extent Mr. Gray’s argument can be construed as a challenge to the reasonableness of his sentence, see id. at 765-66 (appellate court reviews sentence for unreasonableness), we reject this challenge. The record does not indicate that the district court failed to consider a relevant sentencing factor, or considered an improper or irrelevant factor, or made a clear error of judgment in weighing the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Long Soldier, 431 F.3d *449 1120, - (8th Cir. 2005); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1002-04 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 276, 163 L.Ed.2d 246 (2005). Given all the information before the district court, including the arguments of Mr. Gray’s counsel at sentencing, we conclude that the court considered appropriate sentencing factors and that the sentence was not unreasonable. Accordingly, we affirm.