United States v. Mateo , 200 F. App'x 205 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-4381
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    JOSE   MIGUEL   MATEO,  a/k/a   Alec   Garcia
    Rodriguez, a/k/a Santos Figueroa Santiago,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District        Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Durham.         James A. Beaty, Jr.,
    District Judge. (1:05-cr-00290-JAB)
    Submitted:   September 6, 2006        Decided:   September 20, 2006
    Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    C. David Whaley, MORCHOWER, LUXTON & WHALEY, Richmond, Virginia,
    for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
    ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Jose Miguel Mateo pled guilty to one count of conspiracy
    to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine hydrochloride in
    violation of 
    21 U.S.C. §§ 841
    (a)(1), 846 (2000).    His attorney
    filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967), asserting there were no meritorious issues for appeal, but
    claiming the sentence was greater than necessary because it was
    above the statutory minimum.       Mateo declined to file a pro se
    supplemental brief.   We affirm.
    Mateo’s sentence was six months more than the statutory
    minimum sentence of ten years’ imprisonment and near the low end of
    the advisory guidelines.    In imposing the sentence, the district
    court properly calculated the guidelines range of imprisonment and
    considered the sentencing factors under 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a) (2000).
    We find the sentence reasonable.    United States v. Green, 
    436 F.3d 449
    , 457 (4th Cir. 2006).
    Pursuant to Anders, we have examined the entire record
    and find no meritorious issues for appeal.   Accordingly, we affirm
    Mateo’s conviction and sentence.     This court requires counsel to
    inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme
    Court of the United States for further review. If the client
    requests a petition be filed, but counsel believes 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
    - 2 -
    a copy thereof was served on the client.    We dispense with oral
    argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
    presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
    aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    - 3 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-4381

Citation Numbers: 200 F. App'x 205

Judges: Michael, Per Curiam, Shedd, Williams

Filed Date: 9/20/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023