United States v. Alvarado , 234 F. App'x 128 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4993
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ABEL RIVERA ALVARADO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty Jr., Chief
District Judge. (1:05-cr-00393-JAB)
Submitted: July 19, 2007 Decided: July 24, 2007
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
A. Wayne Harrison, Sr., LAW OFFICES OF A. WAYNE HARRISON,
Greensboro, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Abel Rivera Alvarado appeals from the seventy-six month
sentence he received after he pled guilty to conspiracy to
distribute between five and fifteen kilograms of cocaine
hydrochloride, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000). Alvarado’s
counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 286 U.S.
738, 744 (1967), stating that there were no meritorious issues for
appeal, but suggesting that the district court erred in sentencing
Alvarado. Alvarado was advised of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, but he has not done so. For the following
reasons, we affirm.
The district court sentenced Alvarado in light of United
States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 224 (2005), and 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007). This Court reviews a post-
Booker sentence to determine whether the sentence is within the
statutorily prescribed range and is reasonable. United States v.
Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 433 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct.
2054 (2006). A sentence within a properly-calculated advisory
Sentencing Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. Rita v.
United States, U.S. , 2007 WL 1772146 (U.S. June 21, 2007) (No.
06-5754); United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341-43 (4th Cir.
2006). Here, the district court correctly calculated the
sentencing range, treated the federal Sentencing Guidelines as
advisory, as directed by Booker, considered the § 3553(a) factors,
- 2 -
and sentenced Alvarado in the middle of his advisory sentencing
range. Thus, we find no error in sentencing.
We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance
with the requirements of Anders, and find no meritorious issues for
appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
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, 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 the 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
- 3 -