Court Opinion

ID: 999431
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:25:36.564812+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:27.418276
License: Public Domain

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.

                             O R D E R

     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to read “Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.”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UNPUBLISHED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 GUERRERO-
MENDOZA,
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Caro-
lina, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. Guerrero-
Mendoza 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. Guerrero-
Mendoza 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. Coun-
sel's motion must state that a copy was served on the client.

The district court's judgment is affirmed. We grant the Govern-
ment'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