United States v. Castrellon , 208 F. App'x 211 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-4073
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    MIGUEL CASTRELLON,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr.,
    District Judge. (3:05-cr-00009-2)
    Submitted:   November 17, 2006            Decided:   December 5, 2006
    Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curium opinion.
    Scott Gsell, LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT GSELL, Charlotte, North Carolina,
    for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney,
    Keith Michael Cave, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
    Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Miguel Castrellon pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute
    and to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of
    cocaine, in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. § 846
     (2000).                         The district
    court sentenced Castrellon to sixty months in prison.                        Counsel has
    filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967), raising one claim but stating that there are no meritorious
    grounds for appeal.       Castrellon was advised of his right to file a
    pro se supplemental brief, but did not file such a brief.                              We
    affirm.
    Castrellon’s guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily
    entered.     Further, the record discloses compliance with Fed. R.
    Crim.   P.   11.      There   was    a   factual    basis       for    the    plea,   and
    Castrellon readily admitted his guilt.                   We therefore affirm the
    conviction.
    Castrellon’s probation officer assigned a base offense
    level of 26, see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(c)(7)
    (2004).       Three     levels      were    subtracted       for       acceptance     of
    responsibility.       See USSG § 3E1.1.      His total offense level was 23,
    and   his    criminal   history      category      was    II.         Ordinarily,     his
    guideline range would have been 51-63 months; however, because of
    the statutory minimum five-year sentence to which he was subject,
    see 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (b)(1)(B) (2000), the guideline range became 60-
    - 2 -
    63 months.      See USSG § 5G1.1.      There were no objections to the
    presentence report.
    At     sentencing,    the   court    considered    the    advisory
    guideline range as well as the factors set forth at 
    18 U.S.C.A. § 3553
    (a)(1) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006).                 The court sentenced
    Castrellon to sixty months in prison.                In the Anders brief,
    Castrellon contends that the court erred in imposing the statutory
    minimum sentence.
    After United States v. Booker, 
    543 U.S. 220
     (2005),
    sentencing courts are no longer bound by the guideline range
    prescribed by the sentencing guidelines.            United States v. Hughes,
    
    401 F.3d 540
    , 546 (4th Cir. 2005).          Instead, courts must calculate
    the appropriate guideline range, consider that range in conjunction
    with other relevant factors under the guidelines and § 3553(a), and
    impose a sentence.       United States v. Green, 
    436 F.3d 449
    , 456 (4th
    Cir.), cert. denied, 
    126 S. Ct. 2309
     (2006).                  A post-Booker
    sentence must be “within the statutorily prescribed range and . . .
    reasonable.” Hughes, 
    401 F.3d at 546-47
     (citations omitted). “[A]
    sentence imposed within the properly calculated Guidelines range .
    . . is presumptively reasonable.” Green, 
    436 F.3d at 457
     (internal
    quotation marks and citation omitted).
    Castrellon was sentenced to the statutory minimum of
    sixty   months,    and    the   sentence    falls    within   the   correctly
    calculated guideline range of 60-63 months.            Because the district
    - 3 -
    court    appropriately   treated    the    guidelines    as    advisory    and
    considered the guideline range in conjunction with the § 3553(a)
    factors in imposing sentence, we conclude that the sentence is
    reasonable.
    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
    record    for   any   meritorious    issues    and      have   found      none.
    Accordingly, we affirm.    This court requires counsel to 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 move this court for leave to
    withdraw from representation.       Counsel’s motion must state that a
    copy of the motion was served on the client.         We dispense with oral
    argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately set
    forth in the materials before the court and argument would not aid
    the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    - 4 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-4073

Citation Numbers: 208 F. App'x 211

Judges: Michael, Shedd, Hamilton

Filed Date: 12/5/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024