UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4860
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOAB J. FLORESDELGADO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CR-04-92)
Submitted: March 28, 2005 Decided: April 13, 2005
Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert C. Neeley, Jr., ROBINSON, NEELEY & ANDERSON, Norfolk,
Virginia, for Appellant. Paul Joseph McNulty, United States
Attorney, Shannon Leigh Dillon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Joab J. Floresdelgado pled guilty to driving under the
influence of alcohol (third offense), in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 13 (2000), assimilating Va. Code §§ 18.2-266, 18.2-270(B)(3)
(Michie 2004), and driving on a suspended driver’s license (third
offense), in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 7, 13 (2000), assimilating
Va. Code § 46.2-301 (Michie Supp. 2004). He was sentenced to
fifteen months’ imprisonment, to run consecutively to a federal
sentence imposed on the violation of his probation.
Floresdelgado’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in his
view, there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising the
issues as to whether the district court’s sentence was reasonable
and whether the court erred in imposing the sentence to run
consecutively rather than concurrently with the sentence imposed on
revocation of probation. Although informed of his right to do so,
Floresdelgado has not filed a supplemental brief.
Floresdelgado did not object to his sentence; thus, we
review for plain error. United States v. Osborne, 345 F.3d 281,
284 (4th Cir. 2003) (citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725,
732 (1993)). The sentencing guidelines apply to assimilated
crimes; guideline sentences for assimilated crimes must fall within
the minimum and maximum terms set by state law. United States v.
Young, 916 F.2d 147 (4th Cir. 1990). If there is no analogous
- 2 -
guideline, “the court shall impose an appropriate sentence, having
due regard for the purposes set forth in [18 U.S.C. § 3553]
subsection (a)(2).” See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2X5.1
comment. (back’d) (2003). Floresdelgado posits a general challenge
to the reasonableness of the court’s sentence. Review under 18
U.S.C. § 3742(e) (2000) is limited in this case to whether the
sentence was imposed in violation of the law or is plainly
unreasonable. Given the court’s consideration of Floresdelgado’s
three drunk driving convictions in a relatively short time frame,
we find that the fifteen-month sentence is not plainly
unreasonable. Furthermore, the district court stated that, in
imposing its sentence, it considered the provisions under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553.
Floresdelgado also argues that the district court erred
in not allowing the fifteen-month sentence to run concurrently
rather than consecutively to the sentence he is serving for
violating his probation. We find no plain error. See USSG
§ 5G1.3, comment. (n.3(C)) (recommending sentence for instant
offense be imposed consecutively to sentence imposed for revocation
of probation).
In accordance with the requirements of Anders, we have
reviewed the record for potential error and have found none.
Therefore, we affirm Floresdelgado’s sentence. This court requires
that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to
- 3 -
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
- 4 -