Filed: August 10, 1999

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-4799

(CR-98-125)

United States of America,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

Onesimo Elizar Guerrero-Mendoza,

Defendant - Appellant.

ORDER

The court amends its opinion filed June 29, 1999, as follows:

On the cover sheet, section 6 -- the status line is corrected

to read “Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.”

For the Court - By Direction

/s/ Patricia S. Connor

Clerk
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

No. 98-4799

ONESIMO ELIZAR GUERREROMENDOZA,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.

William L. Osteen, District Judge.

(CR-98-125)

Submitted: June 17, 1999

Decided: June 29, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and

BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette,

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Onesimo Elizar Guerrero-Mendoza appeals from his conviction

and sentence for illegal reentry into the United States by a deported

alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C.A. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (West 1999).

Guerrero-Mendoza's attorney filed a brief in accordance with Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), noting one issue but stating that,

in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. GuerreroMendoza was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief, but

he has not done so.

After pleading guilty, Guerrero-Mendoza's guideline range was

calculated as forty-six to fifty-seven months, and the district court

sentenced him to a term of fifty-two months imprisonment. GuerreroMendoza contends that his sentence was unduly harsh. However,

since Guerrero-Mendoza's sentencing range was properly calculated

and Guerrero-Mendoza was sentenced within that range, this court

has no authority to consider this contention on appeal. See United

States v. Jones, 18 F.3d 1145, 1151 (4th Cir. 1994).

We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with

the requirements of Anders and find no meritorious issues for appeal.

We deny Guerrero-Mendoza's counsel's motion to withdraw, because

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

renew his motion for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state that a copy was served on the client.

The district court's judgment is affirmed. We grant the Government's motion to submit the case on briefs, because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 2