United States v. Sanchez , 177 F. App'x 364 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-5066
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    NICHOLAS CALDERON    SANCHEZ,   a/k/a   Nicholas
    Sanchez Calderon,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
    Senior District Judge. (CR-05-184)
    Submitted: April 27, 2006                          Decided: May 1, 2006
    Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette,
    Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
    Appellant. Arnold L. Husser, 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Nicholas Calderon Sanchez appeals the forty-six month
    sentence he received after pleading guilty to one count of reentry
    of a deported alien after conviction of an aggravated felony, in
    violation of 
    8 U.S.C. § 1326
     (a) & (b)(2) (2000).                       Sanchez’s
    counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    , 744 (1967), stating that there were no meritorious issues for
    appeal, but challenging the reasonableness of Sanchez’s sentence.
    Sanchez was informed of his right to file a pro se brief, but
    declined to do so.       Because our review of the record discloses no
    reversible error, we affirm.
    Under    the    now-advisory     United      States        Sentencing
    Guidelines     Manual,      Sanchez’s   sentencing      range     was     properly
    calculated    at     forty-six   to   fifty-seven      months’    imprisonment.
    Sanchez contends that, in the interest of justice, the district
    court should have sentenced him below this range.                 To the extent
    Sanchez contends the district court should have departed below the
    applicable    guideline      range,   the   district    court’s    decision    is
    unreviewable. See United States v. Edwards, 
    188 F.3d 230
    , 238 (4th
    Cir. 1999).    We note that every circuit to consider the issue post-
    Booker* has continued to find that decisions not to depart below a
    properly calculated guideline range are unreviewable.                   See, e.g.,
    United States v. Cooper, 
    437 F.3d 324
    , 333 (3d Cir. 2006); United
    *
    United States v. Booker, 
    543 U.S. 220
     (2005).
    - 2 -
    States v. Puckett, 
    422 F.3d 340
    , 345 (6th Cir. 2005); United States
    v. Winingear, 
    422 F.3d 1241
    , 1245-46 (11th Cir. 2005); United
    States v. Frokjer, 
    415 F.3d 865
    , 874-75 (8th Cir. 2005); United
    States v. Burdi, 
    414 F.3d 216
    , 220 (1st Cir. 2005); United States
    v. Sierra-Castillo, 
    405 F.3d 932
    , 936 & n.3 (10th Cir. 2005).
    Even assuming that Sanchez’s broad assertion — that a
    lower    sentence   should   have   been    imposed    “in   the   interest   of
    justice” — states a reviewable issue, we find no reversible error.
    In sentencing Sanchez, the district court considered and correctly
    applied the guidelines and the factors set forth in 
    18 U.S.C.A. § 3553
    (a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005), and imposed a sentence within the
    statutory range; thus, the sentence is reasonable. 
    8 U.S.C. § 1326
    (b)(2); United States v. Green, 
    436 F.3d 449
    , 456-47 (4th Cir.
    2006).      Further,    Sanchez’s    guilty     plea    was    knowingly      and
    voluntarily entered after a thorough hearing pursuant to Rule 11.
    As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
    and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.                   We therefore
    affirm Sanchez’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, 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
    - 3 -
    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 -