Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maria Luisa MARTIN, a/k/a Luisa Maria Martin, a/k/a Maria Martin Sanchez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-01-31
Citations: 55 F. App'x 184
Docket Number: No. 02-4543
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maria Luisa MARTIN, a/k/a Luisa Maria Martin, a/k/a Maria Martin Sanchez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 55
Pages: 184–185

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maria Luisa MARTIN, a/k/a Luisa Maria Martin, a/k/a Maria Martin Sanchez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-4543.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 20, 2002.
Decided Jan. 31, 2003.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Scott L. Wilkinson, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Maria Luisa Martin appeals her conviction and sentence pursuant to a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2) (2000). Martin's counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Although counsel states that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, he argues that § 1326 is unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court's holding in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Neither Martin nor the United States filed a brief. In accordance with Anders, we have considered counsel's brief and have examined the entire record for meritorious issues. We find no error and affirm.
On appeal, Martin's counsel argues that § 1326 is unconstitutional under the holding in Apprendi. We have reviewed the record and find this appeal foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), and by our decision in United States v. Sterling, 283 F.3d 216 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 122 S.Ct. 2606, 153 L.Ed.2d 792 (2002).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Martin's conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of her 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.