UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5066
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
NICHOLAS CALDERON SANCHEZ, a/k/a Nicholas
Sanchez Calderon,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (CR-05-184)
Submitted: April 27, 2006 Decided: May 1, 2006
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Arnold L. Husser, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Nicholas Calderon Sanchez appeals the forty-six month
sentence he received after pleading guilty to one count of reentry
of a deported alien after conviction of an aggravated felony, in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (a) & (b)(2) (2000). Sanchez’s
counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738, 744 (1967), stating that there were no meritorious issues for
appeal, but challenging the reasonableness of Sanchez’s sentence.
Sanchez was informed of his right to file a pro se brief, but
declined to do so. Because our review of the record discloses no
reversible error, we affirm.
Under the now-advisory United States Sentencing
Guidelines Manual, Sanchez’s sentencing range was properly
calculated at forty-six to fifty-seven months’ imprisonment.
Sanchez contends that, in the interest of justice, the district
court should have sentenced him below this range. To the extent
Sanchez contends the district court should have departed below the
applicable guideline range, the district court’s decision is
unreviewable. See United States v. Edwards, 188 F.3d 230, 238 (4th
Cir. 1999). We note that every circuit to consider the issue post-
Booker* has continued to find that decisions not to depart below a
properly calculated guideline range are unreviewable. See, e.g.,
United States v. Cooper, 437 F.3d 324, 333 (3d Cir. 2006); United
*
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
- 2 -
States v. Puckett, 422 F.3d 340, 345 (6th Cir. 2005); United States
v. Winingear, 422 F.3d 1241, 1245-46 (11th Cir. 2005); United
States v. Frokjer, 415 F.3d 865, 874-75 (8th Cir. 2005); United
States v. Burdi, 414 F.3d 216, 220 (1st Cir. 2005); United States
v. Sierra-Castillo, 405 F.3d 932, 936 & n.3 (10th Cir. 2005).
Even assuming that Sanchez’s broad assertion — that a
lower sentence should have been imposed “in the interest of
justice” — states a reviewable issue, we find no reversible error.
In sentencing Sanchez, the district court considered and correctly
applied the guidelines and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. §
3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005), and imposed a sentence within the
statutory range; thus, the sentence is reasonable. 8 U.S.C. § 1326
(b)(2); United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 456-47 (4th Cir.
2006). Further, Sanchez’s guilty plea was knowingly and
voluntarily entered after a thorough hearing pursuant to Rule 11.
As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore
affirm Sanchez’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 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
- 3 -
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 -