Court Opinion

ID: 1002453
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:11:19.287146+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:28.230906
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                     No. 00-4089

ALFONZO ROMAN-SANCHEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.
N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge.
(CR-99-159)

Submitted: August 29, 2000

Decided: September 14, 2000

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr.,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Alfonzo Roman-Sanchez appeals from a seventy-month sentence
imposed following his guilty plea for re-entering the country after
being deported following his conviction for an aggravated felony, 8
U.S.C.A. § 1326 (West Supp. 2000). Roman-Sanchez's attorney has
filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967). Counsel states that there are no meritorious grounds for
appeal but addresses the following issue: whether the district court
properly added two criminal history points to Roman-Sanchez's crim-
inal history score because he was on probation at the time that he ille-
gally re-entered the country. Although informed of his right to file a
pro se supplemental brief, Roman-Sanchez declined to file his own
brief. Because our review of the record reveals no reversible error, we
affirm.

A defendant receives a two point increase for his commission of a
federal crime if he was under a criminal justice sentence at the time
that he committed the federal offense. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual § 4A1.1(d) (1998). The application note to § 4A1.1(d)
expressly includes unsupervised probation in the definition of a
"criminal justice sentence." USSG § 4A1.1, comment. (n.4). It was
undisputed that, at the time that Roman-Sanchez illegally re-entered
the country, he was on probation for previous state convictions. Thus,
the district court properly assigned him two criminal history points on
this basis.

We further find, from our own review of the record, that the district
court did not abuse its discretion in denying counsel's motion to with-
draw, on Roman-Sanchez's request, so that different counsel could be
appointed. See United States v. Mullen, 32 F.3d 891, 895 (4th Cir.
1994) (setting forth the factors for review of motions for the appoint-
ment of substitute counsel). Further, Roman-Sanchez's guilty plea,

                    2
following the court's thorough Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 inquiry, was
knowing and voluntary. See, e.g., United States v. Ubakanma, 215
F.3d 431, 424 (4th Cir. 2000).

We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with
the requirements of Anders, and find no meritorious issues for appeal.
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, 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 argu-
ment would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3
c