United States v. Perez-Mendez , 206 F. App'x 287 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4345
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RAMON A. PEREZ-MENDEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.
(1:03-cr-00341-WDQ)
Submitted: October 31, 2006 Decided: November 14, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marc Gregory Hall, MARC G. HALL, P.C., Rockville, Maryland, for
Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Christopher
J. Romano, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
This appeal is before the court after our limited remand
for resentencing under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220(2005). Ramon Perez-Mendez appeals the 168-month sentence imposed
after his conviction for conspiracy to distribute and to possess
with intent to distribute heroin and cocaine in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 846 (2000). Perez-Mendez’s counsel filed a brief pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there
were no meritorious issues for appeal. Although he was informed of
his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Perez-Mendez has not
filed a brief. We find that the district court properly applied
the sentencing guidelines and that the sentence imposed is
reasonable. We therefore affirm the sentence.
This court reviews the imposition of a sentence for
reasonableness. Booker, 543 U.S. at 260-61; United States v.
Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005). After Booker, courts
must calculate the appropriate guideline range, making any
appropriate factual findings. United States v. Davenport, 445 F.3d
366, 370 (4th Cir. 2006). The court then should consider the
resulting advisory guideline range in conjunction with the factors
under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006), and determine
an appropriate sentence. Davenport, 445 F.3d at 370. If the
sentence imposed is within the advisory guideline range, it will be
presumed to be a reasonable sentence. United States v. Green, 436
- 2 -
F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309(2006).
Here, the district court properly determined the
applicable guideline range and, after consideration of the
§ 3553(a) factors, imposed a sentence within that range. We find
that the resulting 168-month sentence is reasonable. See United
States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 2006),
petition for cert. filed, U.S.L.W. (U.S. July 21, 2006)
(No. 06-5439); Green, 436 F.3d at 457.
As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore
affirm Perez-Mendez’s sentence. 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 -