Case ID: f-appx_389/html/0311-01.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. Daniel DeJesus URIOSTEGUI, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-4264.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 19, 2010.
    Decided: July 29, 2010.
    Christopher A. Beechler, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Randall Stuart Galyon, 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   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Daniel DeJesus Uriostegui timely appeals the 180-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine hydrochloride, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006), and one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(l)(A)(i) (2006). Uriostegui’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Uriostegui has not filed a pro se brief, though he was informed of his right to do so.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Uriostegui, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Uriostegui 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 thereof was served on Urioste-gui. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conclusions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.