United States v. Moreno-Parada , 242 F. App'x 930 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-5010
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    HECTOR MORENO-PARADA, a/k/a Rogelio       Camas-
    Pineda, a/k/a Arturo Melandes-Pena,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief
    District Judge. (1:06-cr-00059-JAB)
    Submitted: May 30, 2007                            Decided: July 6, 2007
    Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis,
    Assistant Federal Public Defender, Winston-Salem, North Carolina,
    for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Angela
    Hewlett Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro,
    North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Hector Moreno-Parada appeals from his conviction and
    ninety-six month sentence after pleading guilty to illegal reentry
    into the United States after deportation for an aggravated felony,
    in violation of 
    8 U.S.C. § 1326
    (a), (b)(2) (2000). Moreno-Parada’s
    counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for
    appeal, but raising the issue of whether Moreno-Parada’s sentence
    was reasonable.    Moreno-Parada was given an opportunity to file a
    supplemental pro se brief, but has not done so.
    This court reviews the imposition of a sentence for
    reasonableness.     United States v. Booker, 
    543 U.S. 220
    , 260-61
    (2005); United States v. Hughes, 
    401 F.3d 540
    , 546-47 (4th Cir.
    2005).   After     Booker,   courts   must   calculate   the   appropriate
    guidelines range, making any appropriate factual findings.         United
    States v. Davenport, 
    445 F.3d 366
    , 370 (4th Cir. 2006).          The court
    then should consider the resulting advisory guidelines range in
    conjunction with the factors under 
    18 U.S.C.A. § 3553
    (a) (West 2000
    & Supp. 2006), and determine an appropriate sentence.          Davenport,
    
    445 F.3d at 370
    .    This court will affirm a post-Booker sentence if
    it is within the statutorily prescribed range and is reasonable.
    Hughes, 
    401 F.3d at 546-47
    .           A sentence within the properly
    calculated advisory guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.
    - 2 -
    United States v. Green, 
    436 F.3d 449
    , 457 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
    
    126 S. Ct. 2309
     (2006).
    At sentencing, Moreno-Parada failed to object to the
    calculation of the guidelines range as set forth in the presentence
    report.    The district court imposed a sentence of ninety-six
    months’ imprisonment, which was within the advisory guidelines
    range of seventy-seven to ninety-six months and well below the
    statutory maximum of twenty years’ incarceration. Accordingly, the
    sentence is presumptively reasonable.         See Green, 
    436 F.3d at 457
    .
    The district court correctly calculated the advisory guidelines
    range and properly noted that it had considered the relevant
    factors under the guidelines and 
    18 U.S.C.A. § 3553
    (a).              Moreno-
    Parada has made no showing that the sentence is procedurally or
    substantively unreasonable.        Therefore, we find that the sentence
    imposed by the district court is reasonable.
    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
    this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.                  We
    therefore affirm Moreno-Parada’s conviction and sentence.                 This
    court requires counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right
    to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
    review.   If the client 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
    - 3 -
    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
    - 4 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-5010

Citation Numbers: 242 F. App'x 930

Judges: Duncan, Gregory, Hamilton, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 7/6/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023