United States v. Estrada , 241 F. App'x 85 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4484
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ANDRES ESTRADA,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 06-4804
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
PRIMITIVO ABEJA VEGA, a/k/a Roberto Lopez,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals 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-00363-JAB)
Submitted: July 11, 2007 Decided: July 20, 2007
Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John A. Dusenbury, Jr., OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER,
Greensboro, North Carolina; Benjamin D. Porter, MORROW, ALEXANDER
& PORTER, PLLC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellants.
Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Randall Stuart Galyon,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Andres Estrada and
Primitivo Abeja Vega appeal their convictions and sentences for
conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000). On appeal, counsel filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
claiming there are no meritorious issues on appeal, but raising the
question of whether the sentences were reasonable. Neither
Appellant filed a pro se supplemental brief. Finding no error, we
affirm.
We find Appellants’ ranges of imprisonment were properly
calculated under the Sentencing Guidelines. Thus, their sentences
at the low end of the Guidelines range of imprisonment were
reasonable. United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341 (4th Cir.
2006).
Pursuant to Anders, we have examined the entire record
and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm
the convictions and sentences. We require counsel to inform the
clients, in writing, of their right to petition the Supreme Court
of the United States for further review. If a client requests a
petition be filed, but counsel believes 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
- 3 -
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -