UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5067
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JUAN CARLOS NAVARETTE-BELTRAN, a/k/a Luis
Arriga-Juarez, a/k/a Juan Carlos Ariga
Navarette, a/k/a Louis Aruga Navarete,
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-05-34)
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Eric D. Placke,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Angela
Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Arnold L. Husser,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 Carlos Navarette-Beltran pled guilty to one count of
reentry of a deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a),
(b)(2) (2000), and was sentenced to seventy-one months
imprisonment. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising the issue of whether
the sentence imposed by the district court was reasonable.
Although Navarette-Beltran was informed of his right to file a pro
se supplemental brief, he has not done so.
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 applicable guideline range
as well as the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000).
Id. If the sentence imposed is within the properly calculated
guideline range, it is presumptively reasonable. United States v.
Green, 436 F.3d 449, 2006 WL 267217, at *5 (4th Cir. Feb. 6, 2006)
(No. 05-4270).
Navarette-Beltran’s sentence was both within the
guideline range of fifty-seven to seventy-one months, and well
within the statutory maximum of twenty years. See 8 U.S.C.
- 2 -
§ 1326(b)(2). Because the district court appropriately treated the
guidelines as advisory, and properly calculated and considered the
guideline range and the relevant § 3553(a) factors, we find the
sentence reasonable.
In accordance with Anders we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. 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 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 -