UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4349

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

PHANI RAJU BHIMA RAJU,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, 

Jr., District Judge. (3:13-cr-00079-RJC-1)

Submitted: January 22, 2015 Decided: January 26, 2015

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sarah E. Bennett, TIN FULTON WALKER & OWEN, PLLC, Charlotte, 

North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Phani Raju Bhima Raju pled guilty, pursuant to a 

written plea agreement, to a five-count criminal information in 

which he was charged with conspiracy to defraud the United 

States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2012); presentation of 

fraudulent immigration documentation and aiding and abetting the 

same, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1546, 2 (2012); unlawful 

employment of at least ten unauthorized aliens within a one-year 

period and aiding and abetting the same, in violation of 8 

U.S.C. §§ 1324(a)(3)(A) (2012) and 18 U.S.C. § 2; hiring, 

recruiting, and referring for a fee unauthorized aliens for 

employment, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(a)(1)(A), (f)(1) 

(2012); and conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation 

of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) (2012). At sentencing, the district 

court varied downward from the applicable Guidelines range of 

57-71 months’ imprisonment and imposed a forty-eight-month 

sentence. This appeal timely followed.

Counsel has submitted an appellate brief pursuant to 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), averring that there 

are no meritorious issues for appeal but asking us to review the 

propriety of the two-level obstruction of justice enhancement 

that was imposed. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

(“USSG”) § 3C1.1 (2013). The Government has declined to file a 
3

response brief. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the 

judgment.

We review any criminal sentence, “whether inside, just 

outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range,” for 

reasonableness, “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion 

standard.” United States v. King, 673 F.3d 274, 283 (4th Cir.

2012); see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46, 51 (2007). 

When determining a sentence, the district court must calculate 

the defendant’s advisory Guidelines range and consider it in 

conjunction with the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

(2012). Gall, 552 U.S. at 49–50.

The lone issue identified in counsel’s Anders brief 

concerns the two-level obstruction of justice enhancement that 

the district court adopted over Raju’s objection. We review the 

district court’s factual findings regarding an enhancement for 

clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. 

Strieper, 666 F.3d 288, 292 (4th Cir. 2012).

To sustain this enhancement, the district court relied 

on the relevant facts set forth in the presentence report 

(“PSR”), which detailed some of Raju’s efforts to mask his 

fraudulent activities from investigating authorities. Although 

defense counsel disputed the application of the enhancement, the 

facts were not contested. We agree with the district court that 

the conduct described in the PSR — which, at a minimum, 
4

established an attempt to obstruct or impede the ongoing 

investigation into Raju’s business — is the sort that USSG 

§ 3C1.1 targets. We thus discern no clear error in the 

application of this enhancement.*

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for 

appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 

This court requires that counsel inform Raju, in writing, of his 

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

further review. If Raju requests that a petition be filed, but 

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then 

counsel may move this court for leave to withdraw from 

representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof 

was served on Raju. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 * Raju has submitted a pro se supplemental brief challenging 

two other aspects of the computation of his Sentencing 

Guidelines range and asserting that he received ineffective 

assistance of counsel. Neither of the sentencing issues has 

merit, and the record does not conclusively demonstrate that 

Raju’s attorney was ineffective. Accordingly, the latter issue 

should be raised, if at all, in a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 (2012).