UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 02-4163 JESUS BAUTISTA-RODRIGUEZ, a/k/a

Jose Antonio C. Patino, a/k/a Jose

Antonio Patino-Cervantes,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.

Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-01-261)

Submitted: July 25, 2002

Decided: August 5, 2002

Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Danny T. Ferguson, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant.

Anna Mills Wagoner, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 

Jesus Bautista-Rodriguez appeals from his conviction and fiftyone-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). Bautista-Rodriguez’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 guilty plea was not knowingly and

voluntarily entered. Bautista-Rodriguez 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 Bautista-Rodriguez’s

conviction and sentence. 

We find that Bautista-Rodriguez’s guilty plea was knowingly and

voluntarily entered after a thorough hearing pursuant to Fed. R. Crim.

P. 11. Bautista-Rodriguez 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 Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31 (1970); United

States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). 

We also find that the district court properly computed BautistaRodriguez’s offense level and criminal history category and correctly

determined the applicable guideline range of forty-one to fifty-one

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). 

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

have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm

Bautista-Rodriguez’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that

2 UNITED STATES v. BAUTISTA-RODRIGUEZ
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

UNITED STATES v. BAUTISTA-RODRIGUEZ 3