court did not agree with counsel’s argument that Brown’s conduct was not so serious in light of his background; rather, the court noted the very serious nature of it. After considering the guidelines and the § 3553(a) factors and argument by counsel, the court found that a sentence of 300 months — within the advisory guideline range — was appropriate. Because the district court adequately explained the basis for its sentencing decision and considered both Brown’s arguments and the § 3553(a) factors with respect to Brown and his conduct, we find that the resulting 300-month total sentence was reasonable. See United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir.2006), petition for cert. filed, - U.S.L.W. -, 2006 WL 2066682 (U.S. July 21, 2006) (No. 06-5439); Green, 436 F.3d at 457 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we affirm Brown’s sentence. We
holding that sentences within the guideline range are presumptively reasonable holding that a sentence within the properly calculated guideline range is presumptively reasonable holding that the defendants sentence was within the guidelines range and therefore presumptively reasonable holding that a sentence within a properly calculated guidelines range is presumptively reasonable holding a sentence within the advisory guidelines range is presumptively reasonable