United States v. Perez , 284 F. App'x 106 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4942
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RAUL GONZALEZ PEREZ, a/k/a Mula,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief
District Judge. (3:06-cr-00381-JRS-2)
Submitted: July 2, 2008 Decided: July 17, 2008
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Samuel P. Simpson V, MONTGOMERY & SIMPSON, LLP, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellant. Olivia N. Hawkins, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
On October 18, 2006, Raul Gonzalez Perez was charged in
a four count indictment with: (1) conspiracy to distribute 500
grams or more of a mixture containing a detectable amount of
cocaine and 50 grams or more of a mixture containing a detectable
amount of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000)
(Count One); (2) distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of
21 U.S.C.A. § 841 (West 2000 & Supp. 2007) (Count Two);
(3) distribution of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (Count
Three); and (4) distribution of 50 grams or more of
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. Perez entered
into a plea agreement with the Government, in which he agreed to
plead guilty to Count One of the indictment, and the Government
agreed to dismiss the remaining counts.
Perez appeared for sentencing on September 12, 2007. The
district court sentenced Perez to 87 months’ imprisonment, which
was the bottom of Perez’s advisory guidelines range. Perez timely
noted his appeal and has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). In his Anders brief,
Perez does not identify any potential issues for appeal.1 We
affirm.
1
Perez has elected not to file a pro se supplemental brief.
- 2 -
On May 31, 2007, Perez appeared before a magistrate judge
for a Rule 11 hearing.2 The magistrate judge conducted a thorough
Rule 11 hearing. The magistrate judge ensured that Perez’s plea
was knowing and voluntary, that Perez was aware of the maximum
possibly penalty for Count One, that Perez was aware of the various
trial rights waived by his plea, and that a factual basis existed
to support his plea. The magistrate judge also reviewed the
relevant portions of Perez’s plea agreement with him, including a
stipulated statement of facts that indicated Perez conspired with
another to sell 12.2 grams of methamphetamine on October 4, 2006,
and one kilogram of cocaine and one pound of methamphetamine on
October 5, 2006.
At sentencing, the district court properly calculated
Perez’s advisory guidelines range. The court then heard argument
from defense counsel who requested the court impose a sentence at
the bottom of Perez’s advisory guidelines. After hearing Perez’s
allocution, the district court sentenced Perez to 87 months’
imprisonment. Finally, the record indicates that the district
court was aware of its authority to impose a sentence outside the
advisory guidelines range but found no basis justifying a
departure.
2
Perez specifically waived his right to have his Rule 11
hearing conducted by a district court judge.
- 3 -
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Perez, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
If Perez 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 Perez.
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
- 4 -