UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-4208

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JULIO CESAR ESPARZA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CR-04-837)

Submitted: June 22, 2006 Decided: June 26, 2006

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael S. Seekings, LEATH, BOUCH & CRAWFORD, LLP, Charleston,

South Carolina, for Appellant. Maxwell Barnes Cauthen, III, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
1The district court sentenced Esparza to a concurrent

eighteen-month sentence resulting from the revocation of Esparza’s

supervised release from a 2002 conviction for possession of a

firearm by a prohibited person, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 922(g)(5)(A) (2000). Esparza did not appeal the revocation or

the resulting sentence.

2Although Esparza challenged counsel’s effectiveness in his

notice of appeal, that claim is more properly raised in a motion

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Julio Cesar Esparza pled guilty to illegal reentry by a

deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (2000). The

district court sentenced Esparza to seventy-seven months’

imprisonment.1 Esparza filed a timely notice of appeal, and his

counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no meritorious issues for

appeal but requesting that we review the reasonableness of the

sentence imposed by the district court. Although notified of his

right to do so, Esparza did not file a pro se supplemental brief.2

After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), a

district court is no longer bound by the sentencing range

prescribed by the sentencing guidelines, which are now advisory.

See United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir. 2005). In

determining a sentence post-Booker, sentencing courts are required

to consider the correctly calculated guideline range and the

factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp.

2005). Id.
- 3 -

Here, the district court correctly calculated Esparza’s

total offense level to be twenty-one and his criminal history

category to be VI. Based on these calculations, the sentencing

guidelines provided for a range of 77 to 96 months’ imprisonment.

See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual Ch. 5, Pt. A (sentencing

table). Treating the sentencing guidelines as advisory and

consulting the applicable § 3553(a) factors, the district court

sentenced Esparza at the bottom of this range, well below the

statutory maximum penalty of twenty years’ imprisonment. See 8

U.S.C. § 1326 (2000). Esparza has not rebutted the presumption

that the district court’s imposition of sentence was reasonable.

See United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir. 2006),

cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 2006 WL 1057741 (U.S. May 22, 2006) (No.

05-10474).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for

appeal. We therefore affirm Esparza’s conviction and sentence.

This court requires that counsel inform Esparza, in writing, of the

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for

further review. If Esparza 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 Esparza.
- 4 -

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