UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

VICTOR ALEJO-HERNANDEZ, a/k/a

Manuel Sosa Perez, a/k/a Miguel

Ascncio Bautista, a/k/a Alfonso A.

Zinzono, a/k/a Asencio Jose, a/k/a

Juan Jimenez-Alejo, a/k/a Victor

Hernandez, a/k/a Miguel Ascnio

Bautista, a/k/a Miguel Bautista,  No. 01-4082 a/k/a Ascnio Bautista, a/k/a Manuel

Perez Sosa, a/k/a Juan Alego

Jimenez, a/k/a Michael Bautista,

a/k/a Gaibriel Canvto Alejo, a/k/a

Jimenez Jorge Aguilar, a/k/a

Alfonso Asejo Sinsun, a/k/a Miguel

Ascnio, a/k/a Victor Ernantes Alejo,

a/k/a Gabriel Calvto Alejo, a/k/a

Jorge Aguilar-Jimenez, a/k/a Jose

Luis Asencio, a/k/a Jorge Agila,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.

William L. Osteen, District Judge.

(CR-00-150)

Submitted: September 20, 2001

Decided: September 28, 2001

Before LUTTIG, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam

opinion. 

COUNSEL

Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr.,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellant. Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, Arnold L.

Husser, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Victor Alejo-Hernandez appeals from his eighty-eight-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to the offense of unlawful

reentry into the United States by a deported alien felon. 8 U.S.C.A.

§ 1326(a), (b)(2) (West 1999). Hernandez’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), stating that

there were no meritorious issues for appeal, but addressing the possibility that the sentence was improper. Hernandez was informed of his

right to file a pro se brief, but has not done so. Because our review

of the record discloses no reversible error, we affirm in part and dismiss in part. 

We find that Hernandez’s guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered after a thorough hearing pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11.

Hernandez was properly advised as to his rights, the offense charged,

and the maximum sentence for the offense. The court also determined

that there was an independent factual basis for the plea and that the

plea was not coerced or influenced by any promises. See North Caro2 UNITED STATES v. ALEJO-HERNANDEZ
lina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31 (1970); United States v. DeFusco, 949

F.2d 114, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). 

We find that the district court properly computed Hernandez’s

offense level and criminal history category and correctly determined

the applicable guideline range of seventy-seven to ninety-six months.

The court’s imposition of a sentence within the properly calculated

range is not reviewable. United States v. Jones, 18 F.3d 1145, 1151

(4th Cir. 1994). 

Hernandez challenges the court’s failure to depart based on the

effect his incarceration will have on his family. Because there is no

indication on the record that the court misunderstood its authority to

depart, we do not review the district court’s decision not to depart.

See United States v. Bayerle, 898 F.2d 28, 30-31 (4th Cir. 1990).

Accordingly, we dismiss this portion of the appeal. 

As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and

have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Hernandez’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel

inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court

of the United States for further review. If the client 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 the client. 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 IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART

UNITED STATES v. ALEJO-HERNANDEZ 3