Case ID: f-appx_91/html/0885-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ricardo LOPEZ-VERA, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 03-4717.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 25, 2004.
    Decided: March 30, 2004.
    Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke, 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.
    Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Ricardo Lopez-Vera appeals from his conviction and sixty-five-month sentence imposed after he pled guilty to unlawfully reentering the United States by a deported alien felon, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2000). Lopez-Vera’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), raising one issue but stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Lopez-Vera was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Counsel questions whether the district court erred in sentencing Lopez-Vera to a sixty-five-month term of imprisonment. We find that the district court properly computed Lopez-Vera’s total offense level and criminal history category and correctly determined the applicable guideline range of fifty-seven to seventy-one months. 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 and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Lopezr-Vera’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