United States v. Phani Raju Bhima Raju , 590 F. App'x 277 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4349
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PHANI RAJU BHIMA RAJU,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:13-cr-00079-RJC-1)
Submitted: January 22, 2015 Decided: January 26, 2015
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sarah E. Bennett, TIN FULTON WALKER & OWEN, PLLC, Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant
United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Phani Raju Bhima Raju pled guilty, pursuant to a
written plea agreement, to a five-count criminal information in
which he was charged with conspiracy to defraud the United
States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2012); presentation of
fraudulent immigration documentation and aiding and abetting the
same, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1546, 2 (2012); unlawful
employment of at least ten unauthorized aliens within a one-year
period and aiding and abetting the same, in violation of 8
U.S.C. §§ 1324(a)(3)(A) (2012) and 18 U.S.C. § 2; hiring,
recruiting, and referring for a fee unauthorized aliens for
employment, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(a)(1)(A), (f)(1)
(2012); and conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) (2012). At sentencing, the district
court varied downward from the applicable Guidelines range of
57-71 months’ imprisonment and imposed a forty-eight-month
sentence. This appeal timely followed.
Counsel has submitted an appellate brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), averring that there
are no meritorious issues for appeal but asking us to review the
propriety of the two-level obstruction of justice enhancement
that was imposed. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
(“USSG”) § 3C1.1 (2013). The Government has declined to file a
2
response brief. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the
judgment.
We review any criminal sentence, “whether inside, just
outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range,” for
reasonableness, “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard.” United States v. King, 673 F.3d 274, 283 (4th Cir.
2012); see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46, 51 (2007).
When determining a sentence, the district court must calculate
the defendant’s advisory Guidelines range and consider it in
conjunction with the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2012). Gall, 552 U.S. at 49–50.
The lone issue identified in counsel’s Anders brief
concerns the two-level obstruction of justice enhancement that
the district court adopted over Raju’s objection. We review the
district court’s factual findings regarding an enhancement for
clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v.
Strieper, 666 F.3d 288, 292 (4th Cir. 2012).
To sustain this enhancement, the district court relied
on the relevant facts set forth in the presentence report
(“PSR”), which detailed some of Raju’s efforts to mask his
fraudulent activities from investigating authorities. Although
defense counsel disputed the application of the enhancement, the
facts were not contested. We agree with the district court that
the conduct described in the PSR — which, at a minimum,
3
established an attempt to obstruct or impede the ongoing
investigation into Raju’s business — is the sort that USSG
§ 3C1.1 targets. We thus discern no clear error in the
application of this enhancement. *
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
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 Raju, in writing, of his
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Raju requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel may move this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Raju. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
*
Raju has submitted a pro se supplemental brief challenging
two other aspects of the computation of his Sentencing
Guidelines range and asserting that he received ineffective
assistance of counsel. Neither of the sentencing issues has
merit, and the record does not conclusively demonstrate that
Raju’s attorney was ineffective. Accordingly, the latter issue
should be raised, if at all, in a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2012).
4