UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-4684
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LUIS FERNANDO SANCHEZ, a/k/a Luis Ricardo
Sanchez, a/k/a Bictor Manuel Molina, a/k/a
Luis Castregon-Sanchez, a/k/a Raul Alvarez-
Montes,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-00-42)
Submitted: April 6, 2001 Decided: May 11, 2001
Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William C. Ingram,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, Arnold
L. Husser, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Luis Fernando Sanchez appeals the sentence imposed following
his guilty plea to unlawful re-entry after deportation by an alien
who had previously been convicted of an aggravated felony in
violation of 8 U.S.C.A. § 1326(a), (b)(1) (West 1999). Sanchez’s
attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel states that there are no meritorious
issues for appeal, but contends on Sanchez’s behalf that the dis-
trict court erred in sentencing Sanchez to ninety months imprison-
ment pursuant to a guideline range of seventy-seven to ninety-six
months. Sanchez was informed of his right to file a pro se supple-
mental brief but has not done so.
As Sanchez presents no challenge to the calculation of the
guideline range but merely contends that the district court sen-
tenced him too high within the correct range, we find that he is
not entitled to appellate review on this claim. United States v.
Porter, 909 F.2d 789, 794 (4th Cir. 1990). In addition, we have
examined the entire record in this case in accordance with the
requirements of Anders and find no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Sanchez’s conviction 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 friv-
2
olous, 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