UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4477

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JUAN NICOLAS-JUAN,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (6:09-cr-00886-GRA-1)

Submitted: April 21, 2011 Decided: April 29, 2011

Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jessica Salvini, SALVINI & BENNETT, LLC, Greenville, South 

Carolina, for Appellant. Maxwell B. Cauthen, III, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Juan Nicolas-Juan, an undocumented alien, appeals the 

twenty-four-month-and-one-day sentence imposed following his 

jury convictions of one count of misuse of a social security 

number, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B) (2006), one 

count of aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1028A(a)(1) (2006), and one count of making a false statement, 

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2) (2006). Counsel for 

Nicolas-Juan filed a brief in this court in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there 

are no non-frivolous issues for appeal, but noting that NicolasJuan objects to the district court’s lack of authority to 

permanently stay his removal in a criminal matter as an equal 

protection violation. Nicolas-Juan was informed of his right to 

file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. Finding 

no reversible error, we affirm.

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth 

Amendment prohibits “governmental decisionmakers from treating 

differently persons who are in all relevant respects alike.” 

Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1, 10 (1992). “To succeed on an 

equal protection claim, a [claimant] must first demonstrate that 

he has been treated differently from others with whom he is 

similarly situated and that the unequal treatment was the result 

of intentional or purposeful discrimination.” Morrison v. 
3

Garraghty, 239 F.3d 648, 654 (4th Cir. 2001). If a claimant 

succeeds in making such a showing, we must determine whether the 

disparity is justified under the requisite level of scrutiny. 

Id.

Nicolas-Juan argues that the policy prohibiting a 

district court from staying a criminal alien’s removal results 

in unfair treatment compared to aliens who have not been 

convicted of crimes. We hold that this is not a valid equal 

protection claim because Nicolas-Juan, a convicted criminal, is 

not similarly situated with non-criminal aliens. In any event, 

Nicolas-Juan cannot show that he was treated differently as a 

result of intentional or purposeful discrimination. 

Accordingly, we deny Nicolas-Juan’s equal protection claim.

In accordance with Anders, we have examined the entire 

record and find no other meritorious issues for appeal. We 

therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court 

requires that counsel inform Nicolas-Juan, in writing, of the 

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

further review. If Nicolas-Juan 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 Nicolas-Juan. We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 
4

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED