United States v. Cruz-Correa , 101 F. App'x 414 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4981
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROJAS CRUZ-CORREA, a/k/a Gabriel Cabrera,
a/k/a Omar Lopez-Correa, a/k/a Vincente
Castillo-Cabrera,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-03-278)
Submitted: June 24, 2004 Decided: June 29, 2004
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury,
Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Rojas Cruz-Correa, a native and citizen of Mexico,
appeals his conviction and ninety-month prison sentence following
his guilty plea to illegal reentry into the United States after
having been removed subsequent to conviction for an aggravated
felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2000). Cruz-
Correa’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal but addressing whether the district
court erred by imposing a ninety-month sentence. Cruz-Correa has
been informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but
has not done so.
We find that the district court properly computed Cruz-
Correa’s total offense level and criminal history category and
correctly determined the applicable guideline range of
seventy-seven to ninety-six months imprisonment. The court’s
imposition of a sentence within the properly calculated range is
not reviewable. United States v. Jones, 18 F.3d 1145, 1151 (4th
Cir. 1994).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Cruz-Correa’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 review. If the client requests that a petition be filed,
- 2 -
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 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 -