UNPUBLISHEDUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4349

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,v.
PHANI RAJU BHIMA RAJU,Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Robert J. Conrad,Jr., District Judge. (3:13-cr-00079-RJC-1)

Submitted:

January 22, 2015

Decided:January 26, 2015

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sarah E. Bennett, TIN FULTON WALKER & OWEN, PLLC, Charlotte,North Carolina, for Appellant.
Amy Elizabeth Ray, AssistantUnited States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:
Phani

Raju

Bhima

Raju

pledguilty,

pursuant

toawritten plea agreement, to a five-count criminal information inwhichhewascharged

withconspiracy

todefraud

theUnitedStates, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2012); presentation offraudulent immigration documentation and aiding and abetting thesame,inviolationof18U.S.C.

§§ 1546,2(2012);

unlawful

employment of at least ten unauthorized aliens within a one-year
periodandandabetting

thesame,U.S.C.

§§ 1324(a)(3)(A)(2012)

and18

recruiting,aiding

andreferring

for

afee

inviolation

U.S.C.

§ 2;

unauthorizedof8

hiring,aliensfor

employment, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(a)(1)(A), (f)(1)(2012); and conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation
of18

U.S.C.

§ 1956(h)(2012).

At

sentencing,thedistrict

court varied downward from the applicable Guidelines range of
57-71

months’sentence.

imprisonment

andimposed

aforty-eight-monthThis appeal timely followed.
Counsel has submitted an appellate brief pursuant toAnders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), averring that there
are no meritorious issues for appeal but asking us to review thepropriety of the two-level obstruction of justice enhancement
thatwasimposed.

See(“USSG”) § 3C1.1 (2013).

U.S.

Sentencing

Guidelines

ManualThe Government has declined to file a2

response brief.

For the reasons that follow, we affirm thejudgment.
We review any criminal sentence, “whether inside, justoutside,orsignificantlyreasonableness,standard.”“underoutsideatheGuidelines

deferentialrange,”

forabuse-of-discretion

United States v. King, 673 F.3d 274, 283 (4th Cir.

2012); see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46, 51 (2007).
When determining a sentence, the district court must calculate
the defendant’s advisory Guidelines range and consider it inconjunction with the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2012).

Gall, 552 U.S. at 49–50.
The lone issue identified in counsel’s Anders brief

concerns the two-level obstruction of justice enhancement thatthe district court adopted over Raju’s objection.

We review thedistrict court’s factual findings regarding an enhancement forclear error and its legal conclusions de novo.

United States v.

Strieper, 666 F.3d 288, 292 (4th Cir. 2012).
To sustain this enhancement, the district court reliedonthe(“PSR”),

relevant
which

facts

set

detailed

forthinof

Raju’ssomethepresentence

efforts

tofraudulent activities from investigating authorities.

reportmask

hisAlthoughdefense counsel disputed the application of the enhancement, thefacts were not contested.
theconduct

describedinWe agree with the district court that
thePSR
3—

which,

ataminimum,establishedaninvestigation§ 3C1.1

attempt

intotargets.

toRaju’sWeobstructbusinessthus—

discernor

impedeisthenoclear

thesortongoingthaterrorin

USSG
theapplication of this enhancement. *In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues forappeal.

Wetherefore

affirmthedistrict

court’sjudgment.

This court requires that counsel inform Raju, in writing, of hisright to petition the Supreme Court of the United States forfurther review.

If Raju requests that a petition be filed, but

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, thencounselmaymoverepresentation.

thisforleavetowithdraw

fromCounsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Raju.
facts

court

We dispense with oral argument because theandlegalcontentions

areadequatelymaterials

beforethisandargument

court

presentedwould

notintheaidthedecisional process.
AFFIRMED*

Raju has submitted a pro se supplemental brief challenging
two other aspects of the computation of his Sentencing
Guidelines range and asserting that he received ineffective
assistance of counsel.
Neither of the sentencing issues has
merit, and the record does not conclusively demonstrate that
Raju’s attorney was ineffective.
Accordingly, the latter issue
should be raised, if at all, in a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2012).

4