on the firearm but instead explained that the markings formed a basis for his evaluation, which is customary in the expert's field of analysis. Thus, these facts and data "need not be admissible in evidence.” Fed.R.Evid. 703. 2 . Pursuant to United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), the district court treated the guidelines as advisory and consulted the 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp.2006) sentencing factors prior to imposing sentence. The sentence was within the statutory prescribed range, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) (2000) (providing maximum punishment for § 922(g) violation is ten years’ imprisonment), and was reasonable. See United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 2309, 164 L.Ed.2d 828 (2006)
holding that sentences within the guideline range are presumptively reasonable holding that the defendants sentence was within the guidelines range and therefore presumptively reasonable holding that a sentence within a properly calculated guideline range is usually reasonable holding sentence within properly calculated advisory guidelines range is presumptively reasonable holding that imposition of a sentence within the properly calculated range is not reviewable