UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4911
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ANTONIO CARRILLO-MIRAMONTES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,
Chief District Judge. (CR-03-22)
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark P. Foster, Jr., NIXON, PARK, GRONQUIST & FOSTER, P.L.L.C.,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Douglas Scott Broyles,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Antonio Carrillo-Miramontes appeals from his 78-month
sentence imposed following his guilty plea to two counts of
possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000). Carrillo-Miramontes’ 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 addressing the reasonableness of Carrillo-Miramontes’ sentence.
Carrillo-Miramontes was informed of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Because our review of
the record discloses no reversible error, we affirm.
We find that Carrillo-Miramontes’ guilty plea was
knowingly and voluntarily entered after a thorough hearing pursuant
to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. Carrillo-Miramontes was properly advised
of his rights, the offense charged, and the maximum sentence for
the offense. The court also determined that there was an
independent factual basis for the plea and that the plea was not
coerced or influenced by any promises. See North Carolina v.
Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31 (1970); United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d
114, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991).
We find that the district court properly applied the
Sentencing Guidelines and considered the relevant sentencing
factors before imposing the 78-month sentence. 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3553(a) (West Supp. 2005); see United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d
- 2 -
540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005). Additionally, we find that the
district court’s decision to deny Carrillo-Miramontes’ request for
a variance from the guideline range was reasonable, and its
determination of the sentence within the range was reasonable. See
United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir. 2006) (“[A]
sentence imposed within the properly calculated [g]uidelines range
. . . is presumptively reasonable.”) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). Accordingly, we affirm Carrillo-Miramontes’
sentence.
As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore
affirm Carrillo-Miramontes’ convictions 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 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 -