Case ID: f-appx_200/html/0205-01.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. Jose Miguel MATEO, a/k/a Alec Garcia Rodriguez, a/k/a Santos Figueroa Santiago, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-4381.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Sept. 6, 2006.
    Decided: Sept. 20, 2006.
    C. David Whaley, Morchower, Luxton & Whaley, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, Office of the United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

Jose Miguel Mateo pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine hydrochloride in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2000). His attorney filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asserting there were no meritorious issues for appeal, but claiming the sentence was greater than necessary because it was above the statutory minimum. Mateo declined to file a pro se supplemental brief. We affirm.

Mateo’s sentence was six months more than the statutory minimum sentence of ten years’ imprisonment and near the low end of the advisory guidelines. In imposing the sentence, the district court properly calculated the guidelines range of imprisonment and considered the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000). We find the sentence reasonable. United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.2006).

Pursuant to Anders, we have examined the entire record and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Mateo’s conviction and sentence. This court requires counsel to inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests a petition be filed, but counsel believes 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.