United States v. Borja , 284 F. App'x 31 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4185
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ELIASAR BORJA,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 07-4342
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSE SAUL MONDRAGON, a/k/a Gordo,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief
District Judge. (7:05-cr-00097-FL)
Submitted: June 30, 2008 Decided: July 21, 2008
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sue Genrich Berry, BOWEN & BERRY, PLLC, Wilmington, North Carolina;
Lisa S. Costner, LISA S. COSTNER, PA, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellants. Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United
States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Eliasar Borja and Jose Saul Mondragon, along with several
co-conspirators, were charged with various offenses in a multi-
count indictment. Borja entered a straight-up guilty plea to
conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute more
than five kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846(2000) (Count One), distribution of cocaine, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000) (Counts Three, Four, Five, and Six),
distribution of a mixture and substance containing a detectable
amount of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
(Count Seven), and distribution of cocaine and aiding and abetting
the same, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2(2000) (Count Eight). The district court sentenced him to
concurrent 135-month prison terms on each count. Pursuant to a
plea agreement, Mondragon pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute
and possess with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of
cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (Count One), and money
laundering and aiding and abetting the same, in violation of 18
U.S.C.A. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i), (a)(1)(B)(i) (West 2000 & Supp. 2008),
and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (Count Nine). The district court sentenced
Mondragon to concurrent eighty-seven-month prison terms on each
count.
Borja and Mondragon now challenge their convictions and
sentences in these consolidated appeals. Their attorneys have
- 3 -
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, in Borja’s case, the sentence imposed was
unreasonable. Although each was advised of his right to do so,
neither Borja nor Mondragon has filed a supplemental pro se brief.
For the following reasons, we affirm.
We review sentences imposed by district courts for
reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v.
United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597-98 (2007); United States v.
Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473-74 (4th Cir. 2007) (discussing procedure
district courts must follow in sentencing defendants). This court
presumes that a sentence imposed within the properly calculated
Guidelines range is reasonable. United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216,
218 (4th Cir. 2008); see Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456,
2462-69 (2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness for within-
Guidelines sentence).
Here, the district court properly calculated Borja’s and
Mondragon’s Guidelines ranges, appropriately treated the Guidelines
as advisory, and considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2008). Each Appellant was sentenced
at the bottom of the applicable Guidelines range and below the
statutory maximum. We considered the arguments raised in
Appellants’ brief and the records in each case, and find no
- 4 -
information to rebut the presumption that the properly calculated
advisory Guidelines sentences are reasonable.
As required by Anders, we have reviewed the record in
each case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Borja’s and Mondragon’s convictions and sentences.
This court requires that counsel inform Borja and
Mondragon, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court
of the United States for further review. If either Borja or
Mondragon requests that a petition be filed, but his 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 her
client. 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
- 5 -