are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether the district court properly calculated the criminal history score and whether the court properly sentenced Gardner as a career offender. Gardner was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he did not do so. We affirm. We review Gardner’s sentence for reasonableness under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). After reviewing the sentencing transcript pursuant to Anders, we conclude that Gardner’s sentence is proeedurally and substantively reasonable. See id. at 49-51, 128 S.Ct. 586 (listing factors for court to consider when determining procedural reasonableness); United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 289 (4th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375,
holding a sentence within the advisory guidelines range is presumptively reasonable holding that the defendants sentence was within the guidelines range and therefore presumptively reasonable holding that belowguidelines sentence 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