United States v. Caban

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4903
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALDI RAMON CABAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (2:06-cr-01208-PMD-5)
Submitted: October 29, 2008 Decided: November 7, 2008
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David B. Betts, LAW OFFICES OF DAVID B. BETTS, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Alston Calhoun Badger, Jr., Assistant
United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Aldi Ramon Caban appeals his convictions and sentence.
Caban was convicted following a jury trial of one count of
conspiracy to manufacture, possess with intent to distribute,
and distribution of a mixture or substance containing fifty
grams or more of methamphetamine, one count of possessing a
rifle with an overall length of less than twenty-six inches and
having a barrel length of less than sixteen inches which was not
registered to him, and one count of being a felon in possession
of a firearm. Caban’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there
are no meritorious issues for appeal but suggesting that the
court review the denial of Caban’s motions to suppress. Caban
has filed a pro se supplemental brief. The Government has
declined to file a brief. Finding no meritorious issues, we
affirm.
Counsel asserts on Caban’s behalf that the district
court erred in denying his motions to suppress statements and
evidence of a firearm recovered from the glove compartment of
the vehicle Caban was driving at the time of his arrest on an
unrelated state charge. We have thoroughly reviewed the record
and find no error in the district court’s denial of Caban’s
motions to suppress. See United States v. Cain, 524 F.3d 477,
481 (4th Cir. 2008) (noting that review of factual findings in
2
denial of motion to suppress is for clear error, while legal
conclusions are reviewed de novo). In addition, we have
considered the issues raised by Caban in his pro se supplemental
brief and find the arguments to be without merit.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Caban’s convictions and 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. Finally, 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