United States v. Hernandez-Marquez , 78 F. App'x 306 ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4282
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ-MARQUEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-02-310)
Submitted: October 3, 2003 Decided: October 22, 2003
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Angela Hewlett Miller, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Francisco Hernandez-Marquez appeals his conviction for illegal
reentry into the United States without permission of the United
States Attorney General, after having previously been deported
subsequent to a conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation
of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2000). Hernandez-Marquez’s attorney
has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), raising one issue but stating that he finds no
meritorious grounds for appeal. Although notified of his right to
do so, Hernandez-Marquez has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.
Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
In the Anders brief, counsel questions whether the district
court abused its discretion in sentencing Hernandez-Marquez at the
high end of the appropriately calculated guideline range. However,
this court does not review a sentence imposed within a properly
calculated guideline range. 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) (2000); United
States v. Porter, 909 F.2d 789, 794 (4th Cir. 1990). Therefore, we
“cannot address appellant’s challenge to the district court’s
exercise of sentencing discretion.” Porter, 909 F.2d at 795.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore
affirm Hernandez-Marquez’s conviction and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
2
review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such 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 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