### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OFA MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 02-4163



#  J ESUS B AUTISTA -R ODRIGUEZ , 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Arnold L. Husser, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 forthe 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-onemonths. 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 U NITED S TATES v. B AUTISTA -R ODRIGUEZcounsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the clientrequests 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 acopy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presentedin the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED 3 U NITED S TATES v. B AUTISTA -R ODRIGUEZ