UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JAVIER HERNANDEZ-JUAREZ, a/k/a  No. 02-4849 Ramon Ache Figueroa-Juarez, a/k/a

Javier Hernandez, a/k/a Javier

Sabier Hernandez, a/k/a Ramon

Figueroa-Juarez,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.

William L. Osteen, District Judge.

(CR-02-168)

Submitted: March 19, 2003

Decided: March 31, 2003

Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis, Assistant

Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant.

Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Angela H. Miller,

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 

Javier Hernandez-Juarez, a native and citizen of Mexico, appeals

his conviction and 95-month sentence after pleading guilty pursuant

to a written plea agreement to illegally reentering the United States

after having been previously deported subsequent to a conviction for

an aggravated felony. His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but raising the issue of whether the district court

abused its discretion in sentencing Hernandez-Juarez to the high end

of the sentencing guidelines range. Although notified by both this

court and his attorney of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief,

Hernandez-Juarez failed to file such a brief. Finding no reversible

error, we affirm. 

The district court adopted Hernandez-Juarez’s presentence report

("PSR"), which properly calculated both Hernandez-Juarez’s base

offense level and his criminal history. The PSR calculated a sentencing guidelines range of 77-96 months, and the court sentenced

Hernandez-Juarez to a 95-month term of imprisonment. A defendant

may not challenge on appeal the district court’s discretionary decision

to impose sentence at a particular point within a properly calculated

guidelines range. United States v. Jones, 18 F.3d 1145, 1151 (4th Cir.

1994); United States v. Porter, 909 F.2d 789, 794-95 (4th Cir. 1990).

Hernandez-Juarez’s claim that the district court abused its discretion

in sentencing him to a 95-month term of imprisonment thus fails.

Hernandez-Juarez raises no other issue on appeal. 

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

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

Accordingly, we affirm Hernandez-Juarez’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

2 UNITED STATES v. HERNANDEZ-JUAREZ
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. HERNANDEZ-JUAREZ 3