United States v. Juan Lopez ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-5033
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JUAN MANUEL LOPEZ, a/k/a Juan Lopez, a/k/a Juan Manuel Lopez
Medina,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:11-cr-00031-CCE-1)
Submitted: May 23, 2012 Decided: June 7, 2012
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alan Doorasamy, Sr., LAW OFFICE OF ALAN DOORASAMY, SR., Winston-
Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra Jane Hairston,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Juan Manuel Lopez appeals the 270-month sentence
imposed by the district court following a guilty plea to
conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). Counsel has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating
that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning
whether the district court erred in granting the Government’s
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K1.1 (2010) motion and
awarding a fifteen percent reduction in sentence rather than the
twenty percent reduction requested by Lopez. Lopez was informed
of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not
done so. The Government has likewise declined to file a brief.
We affirm.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. To
the extent Lopez argues his dissatisfaction with the scope of
the district court’s departure, that decision is unreviewable on
appeal. See United States v. Hill, 70 F.3d 321, 324 (4th Cir.
1995) (this court cannot review “the extent of the district
court’s downward departure, except in instances in which the
departure decision resulted in a sentence imposed in violation
2
of law or resulted from an incorrect application of the
Guidelines”).
This court requires that counsel inform Lopez in
writing of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United
States for further review. If Lopez 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 Lopez.
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
3