and voluntarily entered after a thorough hearing pursuant to Rule 11. Nesbitt was properly advised as to his rights, the offense charged, and the maximum sentence for the offense. The court also determined that there was an independent factual basis for the plea and that the plea was not coerced or influenced by any promises. See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970); United States v. De-Fusco, 949 F.2d 114, 119-20 (4th Cir.1991). We find that the district court properly computed Nesbitt’s offense level and criminal history category and correctly determined the applicable guideline range of one hundred twenty to one hundred thirty-five months. Nesbitt’s sentence was within this range. See United States v. Jones, 18 F.3d 1145, 1151 (4th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). As required by Anders, we have reviewed the
holding that a sentence within a properly calculated guideline range is usually reasonable holding that imposition of a sentence within the properly calculated range is not reviewable holding sentence within properly calculated advisory guidelines range is presumptively reasonable holding that a sentence within the properly calculated guideline range is presumptively reasonable holding that a sentence within a properly calculated guidelines range is presumptively reasonable