United States v. Mancha ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-5015
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARCOS MANCHA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (2:06-cr-00539-PMD)
Submitted: July 22, 2008 Decided: July 24, 2008
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Joseph Condon, Jr., CONDON LAW FIRM, North Charleston, Sourth
Carolina, for Appellant. Eric J. Klumb, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marcos Mancha pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea
agreement, to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute and to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture
containing methamphetamine and fifty grams or more of crack
cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846
(2000). The district court granted the Government’s motion for a
downward departure pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§ 5K1.1 (2006), and sentenced Mancha to the statutory minimum of
240 months of imprisonment. Mancha timely appealed.
On appeal, counsel has filed an Anders* brief, in which
he states there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Mancha was
advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has
not filed a brief. The Government declined to file a brief. We
affirm.
Our review of the record reveals that the district court
conducted a thorough inquiry pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 that
ensured that Mancha’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary, and
supported by a sufficient factual basis. Mancha’s sentence was the
mandatory minimum sentence. The district court was without
authority, in the absence of a substantial assistance motion filed
by the government pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(e) (West 2000 &
Supp. 2007), to sentence Mancha below the statutory mandatory
*
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
- 2 -
minimum sentence. See United States v. Allen, 450 F.3d 565, 568-69
(4th Cir. 2006).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Mancha’s conviction and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform Mancha, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
If Mancha 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 Mancha.
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 -