UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4673
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JUAN RAUDEL MARTINEZ-FLORES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (CR-04-205)
Submitted: December 16, 2005 Decided: January 25, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas N. Cochran, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Juan Raudel Martinez-Flores appeals the district court’s
sentence of twenty-four months’ imprisonment entered pursuant to
his guilty plea for possession of a firearm by an illegal alien in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5) (2000), and possession of a
fraudulent alien registration card in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1546(a) (2000). Martinez-Flores’ attorney has filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
certifying there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but
questioning the reasonableness of Martinez-Flores’ sentence.
Martinez-Flores has been notified of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief but has not done so. Finding no reversible
error, we affirm.
After the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v.
Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), a sentencing court is no longer bound
by the range prescribed by the sentencing guidelines. See United
States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir. 2005). However, in
determining a sentence post-Booker, sentencing courts are still
required to calculate and consider the guideline range prescribed
thereby as well as the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2000). Id. As stated in Hughes, this court will affirm a
post-Booker sentence if it is both reasonable and within the
statutorily prescribed range. Id. at 546-47.
- 2 -
Martinez-Flores claims that the district court misapplied
the sentencing guidelines and that his sentence was too harsh. The
district court correctly applied the advisory guidelines.
Martinez-Flores’ twenty-four month sentence was not only within the
advisory guideline range, but also well below the statutory maximum
of ten years for each count. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(a)(2) and
1546(a) (2000). The sentence imposed by the district court was
reasonable as it appropriately treated the guidelines as advisory,
calculated and considered the guideline range, and weighed the
relevant § 3553(a) factors.
Pursuant to Anders, we have examined the entire record
and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm
Martinez-Flores’ 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. Accordingly, we also deny
counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel. If the client requests
that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition
would be frivolous, then counsel may renew his request 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 -