United States v. Avilez , 177 F. App'x 307 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4511
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JESUS RAMIREZ AVILEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (CR-04-54-SGW)
Submitted: April 20, 2006 Decided: April 24, 2006
Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Daniel R. Bieger, COPELAND & BIEGER, P.C., Abingdon, Virginia, for
Appellant. Craig Jon Jacobsen, Assistant United States Attorney,
Edward Albert Lustig, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jesus Ramirez Avilez appeals his conviction and sentence
for conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine
and 50 grams or more of cocaine, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 846(2000). Avilez’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in his opinion,
there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Although concluding
that such allegations lacked merit, counsel claims on appeal that
there was insufficient evidence to support Avilez’s conviction.
Avilez was notified of his right to file a supplemental pro se
brief, but did not do so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
In the Anders brief, counsel asserts that there was
insufficient evidence to support Avilez’s conviction. We disagree.
Avilez was discovered by law enforcement officials in a house with
other suspected drug traffickers. Items discovered in the house
included methamphetamine, cocaine, baggies, ingredients to make
drugs, scales, balance sheets, cell phones, and cash. Moreover,
several of Avilez’s co-defendants testified against him at trial,
noting his participation in setting up drug buys and hiding drugs
from police.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Avilez’s conviction and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of
- 2 -
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 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 -