UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5164
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ALBERTO PARRA-MONTALVO, a/k/a Alberto Parra-
Servantes,
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-05-151)
Submitted: June 15, 2006 Decided: June 19, 2006
Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael E. Archenbronn, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for
Appellant. 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Alberto Parra-Montalvo appeals his conviction and
seventy-two month sentence imposed following a guilty plea to
conspiracy to distribute at least five kilograms of cocaine
hydrochloride, a violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1),
841(b)(1)(A) (2000). Parra-Montalvo’s attorney has filed a brief
in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 739 (1967),
raising the argument that the sentence was not reasonable, but
stating that he finds no meritorious grounds for appeal. The
Government did not file an answering brief, and although advised of
his right to do so, Parra-Montalvo did not file a pro se
supplemental brief.
As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. The
district court sentenced Parra-Montalvo within the properly
calculated sentencing guidelines range, United States v. Green, 436
F.3d 449, 455-56 (4th Cir. 2006), and considered the factors
provided in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005). We
find Parra-Montalvo’s sentence of seventy-two months to be
reasonable. We therefore affirm his conviction and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform Parra-Montalvo,
in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Parra-Montalvo requests that
a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition
- 2 -
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 Parra-Montalvo.
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 -