United States v. Callejas-Uribe ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4811
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAIME CALLEJAS-URIBE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Glen E. Conrad, District
Judge. (5:05-cr-00061-gec-bwc-3)
Submitted: December 23, 2009 Decided: January 7, 2010
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Allegra M.C. Black,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Christine Madeleine Spurell,
Research and Writing Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant.
Jean Barrett Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charlottesville, Virginia; Ryan Lee Souders, Jeb Thomas Terrien,
Assistant United States Attorneys, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Without a plea agreement, Jaime Callejas-Uribe pled
guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to
distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine hydrochloride, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2006). The district
court sentenced him to ninety-six months in prison. Callejas-
Uribe appeals.
Counsel filed an Anders 1 brief, finding no meritorious
grounds for appeal, but questioning whether the district court
erred by imposing an upward variance sentence without giving
Callejas-Uribe notice of its intention to do so. However, the
Supreme Court has held that an upward variance does not require
notice under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(h). Irizarry v. United States,
128 S. Ct. 2198 (2008).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. 2
We therefore affirm Callejas-Uribe’s conviction and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform Callejas-Uribe, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Callejas-Uribe requests
1
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
2
Callejas-Uribe was advised of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, but he did not file one.
2
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 Callejas-Uribe.
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