court after he pled guilty to distribution of 37.3 grams of cocaine hydrochloride, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000). Jordan’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), challenging Jordan’s sentence but stating that, in his view, there are ño meritorious issues for appeal. Jordan has filed a pro se supplemental brief raising several issues. We affirm. Counsel questions whether Jordan’s sentence is too severe but, citing United States v. Porter, 909 F.2d 789 (4th Cir. 1990), asserts that this court does not have jurisdiction to review sentences within a properly calculated sentencing guidelines range. This court rejected that argument in United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 377-78 (4th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>), petition for cert. filed, — U.S.L.W.(U.S.
holding that appellate courts have jurisdiction under 18 usca  3742 west 2000  supp2006 to review for reasonableness a sentence within advisory guideline range holding that when a court miscalculates the guideline range yet imposes a sentence that falls within a properly calculated guideline range the sentence enjoys a presumption of reasonableness holding that consideration by a sentencing court of acquitted conduct was appropriate in establishing the applicable guideline range or in determining the sentence to impose within the guideline range holding that we may apply a presumption of reasonableness to a sentence within the guidelines range holding a sentence within the advisory guidelines range is presumptively reasonable