UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4397

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CARLOS VEGA, a/k/a Misa, a/k/a Misael Mendez,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District 

Judge. (3:08-cr-00590-CMC-12)

Submitted: July 14, 2010 Decided: July 27, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrew R. Mackenzie, BARRETT & MACKENZIE, LLC, Greenville, South 

Carolina, for Appellant. James Chris Leventis, Jr., OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Mark C. Moore, Stanley Duane 

Ragsdale, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Carlos Vega appeals his 240 month sentence imposed 

upon his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute and possess 

with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, 

fifty grams or more of cocaine base, and a quantity of 

marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), 

and 841(b)(1)(D) (2006) (Count 1), and possession with intent to 

distribute and distribution of marijuana, in violation of 21 

U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(D) (Count 43). Vega’s 

attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious issues 

on appeal, but contending the district court erred in enhancing 

Vega’s sentence pursuant to 21 U.S.C § 851 (2006), in violation 

of Vega’s Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. Though 

informed of his right to do so, Vega has not filed a pro se 

supplemental brief, and the Government has declined to file a 

brief. We affirm.

We review a sentence for reasonableness under an 

abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 

38, 50 (2007). When determining whether a sentence is 

reasonable, the district court’s legal conclusions are reviewed 

de novo, while factual findings are reviewed for clear error. 

United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007). 

“Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that 
3

increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed 

statutory minimum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond 

a reasonable doubt.” Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 

(1967). However, in compliance with Apprendi, judges may find 

facts increasing the mandatory minimum sentence faced by a 

defendant, so long as the sentence remains below the statutory 

maximum. See Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545, 565 (2002). 

After reviewing the record, we find that the district court did 

not err in enhancing Vega’s sentence due to Vega’s prior felony 

drug conviction.

We have reviewed the record in accordance with Anders, 

and find that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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 

expressed in the materials before the court, and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED