United States v. Garcia

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5212
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SALVADOR CASTELLANOS GARCIA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (CR-05-56)
Submitted: July 25, 2006 Decided: July 31, 2006
Before MOTZ, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
U. Wilfred Nwauwa, LAW OFFICES OF U. WILFRED NWAUWA, Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United
States Attorney, Thomas A. O’Malley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Salvador Castellanos Garcia pled guilty, without a plea
agreement, to one count of possession with intent to distribute at
least 500 grams of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000), and one
count of use of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking
crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2000). Garcia was sentenced to the
statutory mandatory minimum of 60 months imprisonment on each
count, to run consecutively, followed by five years of supervised
release. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal but addressing whether the district
court failed to adequately address the factors enumerated in 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000). Counsel also questions the “weight” the
district court should give to the federal Sentencing Guidelines
following the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker,
543 U.S. 220 (2005). Although informed of his right to file a
supplemental pro se brief, Garcia has not done so. Finding no
error, we affirm.
The district court appropriately treated the Guidelines
as advisory, and properly calculated and considered the guideline
range and the relevant § 3553(a) factors. However, because Garcia
was subject to the mandatory statutory minimum sentence on each
count, Booker is not implicated. See United States v. Robinson,
404 F.3d 850, 862 (4th Cir.)(“Booker did nothing to alter the rule
- 2 -
that judges cannot depart below a statutorily provided minimum
sentence . . . . [A] district court has no discretion to impose a
sentence outside of the statutory range established by Congress for
the offense of conviction.”), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 288 (2005).
We therefore affirm Garcia’s conviction and sentence. In
accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this
case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. 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 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 -