UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 01-4000

FELIPE SOTO-GARCIA,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.

James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-00-209-1)

Submitted: June 21, 2001

Decided: July 3, 2001

Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 

Felipe Soto-Garcia appeals from his eighty-four-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). Soto-Garcia’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. Soto-Garcia 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 Soto-Garcia’s conviction and sentence. 

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

11. Soto-Garcia 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 find that the district court properly computed Soto-Garcia’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). 

Soto-Garcia challenges the court’s failure to depart based on his

responsibilities to his wife and minor children. Because there is no

indication on the record that the court misunderstood its authority to

depart, we do not review the failure to depart. See United States v.

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

2 UNITED STATES v. SOTO-GARCIA
As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and

have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm

Soto-Garcia’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

UNITED STATES v. SOTO-GARCIA 3