Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Lena Gant and Shannon Fishburne pled guilty, pursuant to plea agreements, to conspiracy to defraud the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2006). The court sentenced Fishburne to eighteen months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release and imposed $39,196.35 in restitution. The court originally sentenced Gant to twenty-seven months’ imprisonment and five years’ supervised release and imposed $133,175.25 in restitution but later sua sponte amended the judgment, while the appeal was pending, to impose the statutory maximum term of supervised release of three years. On appeal, counsel have filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that there are *198no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether the district court complied with Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 in accepting Appellants’ pleas and whether Appellants’ sentences are reasonable. Appellants were advised of their right to file pro se supplemental briefs, but they did not do so. We affirm.
Because Appellants did not move in the district court to withdraw their guilty pleas, our review of their Rule 11 hearings is for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525-26 (4th Cir.2002); see United States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 343 (4th Cir.2009) (providing plain error standard in context of guilty pleas). After reviewing the Rule 11 hearings pursuant to Anders, we conclude that the district court substantially complied with the requirements of Rule 11, failing only to inform Appellants of their right to persist in their pleas of not guilty, and that this minor omission did not affect Appellants’ substantial rights. See Massenburg, 564 F.3d at 344 (holding that “mere existence of an error cannot satisfy the requirement that [defendants] show that [their] substantial rights were affected”); United States v. Goins, 51 F.3d 400, 402-03 (4th Cir.1995) (holding that district court’s failure to provide requisite information in Rule 11 hearing is harmless error where defendant was advised of omitted information through another means before hearing).
We review Appellants’ sentences 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). This review requires consideration of both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentences. Id. at 51. After reviewing the sentencing transcripts pursuant to An-ders, we conclude that the sentences are procedurally reasonable, as the district court properly calculated Appellants’ applicable Guidelines ranges, gave each party the opportunity to present argument and to allocute, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, and sufficiently explained the selected sentences. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 49-51, 128 S.Ct. 586 (listing factors for court to consider when determining procedural reasonableness). Moreover, we conclude that Appellants’ within-Guidelines sentences are substantively reasonable. See United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir.2010) (holding that, on appeal, within-Guidelines sentences are presumptively reasonable); United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir.2006) (holding that defendants bear burden of showing “that the sentence^ are] unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a) factors” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in these cases and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the criminal judgment against Fishburne and the amended criminal judgment against Gant. This court requires that counsel inform their clients, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If either requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on his client.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED