Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-04811/USCOURTS-ca4-08-04811-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jaime Callejas-Uribe
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-4811

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

JAIME CALLEJAS-URIBE, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Glen E. Conrad, District 

Judge. (5:05-cr-00061-gec-bwc-3) 

Submitted: December 23, 2009 Decided: January 7, 2010 

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Allegra M.C. Black, 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Christine Madeleine Spurell, 

Research and Writing Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. 

Jean Barrett Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Charlottesville, Virginia; Ryan Lee Souders, Jeb Thomas Terrien, 

Assistant United States Attorneys, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 08-4811 Doc: 58 Filed: 01/07/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
PER CURIAM: 

 Without a plea agreement, Jaime Callejas-Uribe pled 

guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to 

distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine hydrochloride, in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2006). The district 

court sentenced him to ninety-six months in prison. CallejasUribe appeals. 

 Counsel filed an Anders1 brief, finding no meritorious 

grounds for appeal, but questioning whether the district court 

erred by imposing an upward variance sentence without giving 

Callejas-Uribe notice of its intention to do so. However, the 

Supreme Court has held that an upward variance does not require 

notice under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(h). Irizarry v. United States, 

128 S. Ct. 2198 (2008). 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record 

in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.2 

We therefore affirm Callejas-Uribe’s conviction and sentence. 

This court requires that counsel inform Callejas-Uribe, in 

writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the 

United States for further review. If Callejas-Uribe requests 

 1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

2

 Callejas-Uribe was advised of his right to file a pro se 

supplemental brief, but he did not file one. 

2 

Appeal: 08-4811 Doc: 58 Filed: 01/07/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3 

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 Callejas-Uribe. 

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

Appeal: 08-4811 Doc: 58 Filed: 01/07/2010 Pg: 3 of 3