Case ID: f-appx_288/html/0080-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      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. Gilberto Vazquez MORALES, a/k/a Jose Luis Corrales, Defendant — Appellant.
    No. 07-4387.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Oct. 5, 2007.
    Decided: Aug. 13, 2008.
    Stacey D. Rubain, Quander & Rubain, P.A., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Gilberto Vazquez Morales pled guilty to distribution of methamphetamine and possession of a firearm by an illegal alien. He was sentenced to concurrent sixty-month sentences. He now appeals. Morales’ attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), alleging that the sentence is unreasonable but stating that there are no meritorious issues for review. Morales has filed a pro se supplemental brief raising additional issues. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

We find no merit to Morales’ claim of innocence, especially in light of his solemn admission of guilt at the Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 proceeding. See Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74, 97 S.Ct. 1621, 52 L.Ed.2d 136 (1977). We also find that Morales’ sentence, imposed within the properly calculated advisory guideline range and applicable statutory limits and after consideration of the factors set forth at 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West Supp.2007), is presumptively reasonable. The ill health and poverty of certain family members are not sufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir.2006), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 127 S.Ct. 3044, 168 L.Ed.2d 759 (2007); United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir .2005).

We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with the requirements of Anders, and we find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. This court requires counsel inform her 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, counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy of the motion 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.