United States v. Hernandez-Sanchez , 194 F. App'x 98 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-4641
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    RIGOBERTO HERNANDEZ-SANCHEZ,
    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-04-475)
    Submitted:   January 11, 2006             Decided:   August 10, 2006
    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, 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    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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.   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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Rigoberto Hernandez-Sanchez appeals his conviction and
    sixty-month sentence imposed following a guilty plea to illegal
    reentry   into    the    United   States,       in   violation   of   
    8 U.S.C. §§ 1326
    (a), (b)(2) (2000).        Hernandez-Sanchez’s attorney has filed
    a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967),   raising      three   issues   but     stating   that   he   finds    no
    meritorious grounds for appeal.*             We have reviewed the record and
    find no reversible error.
    Hernandez-Sanchez asserts that the district court erred
    by failing to sustain his objection to a two-point increase in his
    criminal history calculation for committing the offense of illegal
    reentry into the United States while under a criminal justice
    sentence. The record reflects, however, that Hernandez-Sanchez was
    under a criminal justice sentence on the date he was “found in” the
    United States, August 8, 2004.           See 
    8 U.S.C. § 1326
    (a)(2).             We
    therefore find that the district court did not err in adding these
    points pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.1(d)
    (2004),   in     the    calculation     of     Hernandez-Sanchez’s        advisory
    guideline range.        In addition, the district court did not err in
    declining to resolve an objection regarding one criminal history
    point from a disputed South Carolina conviction because that single
    *
    The Government did not file an answering brief, and although
    advised of his right to do so, Hernandez-Sanchez did not file a pro
    se supplemental brief.
    - 2 -
    point did not affect Hernandez-Sanchez’s Criminal History Category.
    Finally, the sixty-month sentence the district court imposed was
    reasonable. See United States v. Hughes, 
    401 F.3d 540
    , 546-47 (4th
    Cir. 2005).
    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
    record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
    appeal.     We therefore affirm Hernandez-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 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 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-4641

Citation Numbers: 194 F. App'x 98

Judges: Duncan, King, Niemeyer, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 8/10/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023