Case ID: f-appx_186/html/0397-01.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. Alberto PARRA-MONTALVO, a/k/a Alberto Parra-Servantes, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 05-5164.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 15, 2006.
    Decided: June 19, 2006.
    Michael E. Archenbronn, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Angela Hewlett Miller, Office of the United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before KING, SHEDD, 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    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Alberto Parra-Montalvo appeals his conviction and seventy-two month sentence imposed following a guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute at least five kilograms of cocaine hydrochloride, a violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A) (2000). Parra-Montalvo’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), raising the argument that the sentence was not reasonable, but stating that he finds no meritorious grounds for appeal. The Government did not file an answering brief, and although advised of his right to do so, Parra-Montalvo did not file a pro se supplemental brief.

As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. The district court sentenced Parra-Montalvo within the properly calculated sentencing guidelines range, United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 455-56 (4th Cir. 2006), and considered the factors provided in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp.2005). We find Parra-Montalvo’s sentence of seventy-two months to be reasonable. We therefore affirm his conviction and sentence.

This court requires that counsel inform Parra-Montalvo, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Parra-Montalvo 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 Parra-Montalvo.

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