UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4529
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SERGIO OMAR BETANZOS-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-04-238)
Submitted: February 16, 2006 Decided: February 21, 2006
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury,
Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Sergio Omar Betanzos-Flores appeals his thirty month
prison sentence resulting from his guilty plea for reentry of a
deported alien after conviction of three or more misdemeanors
involving crimes against persons in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§§ 1326(a) and (b)(1) (2000). Betanzos-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.
Betanzos-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.
Betanzos-Flores claims that the district court erred in
imposing his sentence. The district court correctly applied the
advisory guidelines to find a sentencing range of twenty-one to
- 2 -
twenty-seven months’ imprisonment. The district court went above
that range and selected a thirty month sentence due to Betanzos-
Flores’ immediate reentry under a false identity after being
deported. Betanzos-Flores’ sentence was well below the statutory
maximum of ten years. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1). 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 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors.
Pursuant to Anders, we have examined the entire record
and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm
Betanzos-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. If the client requests
that a petition be filed, 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 -