UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4925
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RUBEN ALVARADO VELASQUEZ, a/k/a Edgar
Rodriquez Rivera,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (CR-02-46)
Submitted: July 20, 2005 Decided: August 17, 2005
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher R. Clifton, GRACE, HOLTON, TISDALE & CLIFTON, P.A.,
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., United States Attorney, Gretchen C. F. Shappert, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Ruben Alvarado Velasquez appeals his guilty-plea
conviction and sentence for possession with intent to distribute
more than 500 grams of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)
(2000). Velasquez’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the
sufficiency of the evidence, but stating that he finds no
meritorious grounds for appeal. Velasquez declined to file a pro
se supplemental brief despite being informed of his right to do so.
Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
In the Anders brief, counsel raises the potential issue
of whether the district court complied with the requirements of 21
U.S.C. § 851(b) (2000). We find that Velasquez was given ample
opportunity to challenge the existence of this prior conviction,
and declined to do so. Accordingly, any challenge to the use of
the prior conviction is precluded. United States v. Campbell, 980
F.2d 245, 252 (4th Cir. 1992).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Velasquez’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 petition would be frivolous, then
- 2 -
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 -