United States v. Morales , 288 F. App'x 80 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4387
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
GILBERTO VAZQUEZ MORALES, a/k/a Jose Luis
Corrales,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior
District Judge. (1:06-cr-00272-WLO)
Submitted: October 5, 2007 Decided: August 13, 2008
Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stacey D. Rubain, QUANDER & RUBAIN, P.A., Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gilberto Vazquez Morales pled guilty to distribution of
methamphetamine and possession of a firearm by an illegal alien.
He was sentenced to concurrent sixty-month sentences. He now
appeals. Morales’ attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), alleging that the sentence is
unreasonable but stating that there are no meritorious issues for
review. Morales has filed a pro se supplemental brief raising
additional issues. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
We find no merit to Morales’ claim of innocence,
especially in light of his solemn admission of guilt at the Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11 proceeding. See Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74
(1977). We also find that Morales’ sentence, imposed within the
properly calculated advisory guideline range and applicable
statutory limits and after consideration of the factors set forth
at 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West Supp. 2007), is presumptively
reasonable. The ill health and poverty of certain family members
are not sufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. See
United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 275, 279 (4th Cir. 2006),
cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 3044 (2007); United States v. Hughes, 401
F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir. 2005).
We have examined the entire record in this case in
accordance with the requirements of Anders, and we find no
meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. This court
- 2 -
requires counsel inform her 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, counsel may move
in 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 presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -