UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4717
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RICARDO LOPEZ-VERA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-03-64)
Submitted: March 25, 2004 Decided: March 30, 2004
Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Angela
Hewlett Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Ricardo Lopez-Vera appeals from his conviction and sixty-
five-month sentence imposed after he pled guilty to unlawfully
reentering the United States by a deported alien felon, in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2000). Lopez-Vera’s
counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), raising one issue but stating that, in his view,
there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Lopez-Vera was
informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has
not done so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
Counsel questions whether the district court erred in
sentencing Lopez-Vera to a sixty-five-month term of imprisonment.
We find that the district court properly computed Lopez-Vera’s
total offense level and criminal history category and correctly
determined the applicable guideline range of fifty-seven to
seventy-one months. The court’s imposition of a sentence within
the properly calculated range is not reviewable. United States v.
Jones, 18 F.3d 1145, 1151 (4th Cir. 1994).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm Lopez-Vera’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,
- 2 -
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 -