UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4208
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JULIO CESAR ESPARZA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-04-837)
Submitted: June 22, 2006 Decided: June 26, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Seekings, LEATH, BOUCH & CRAWFORD, LLP, Charleston,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Maxwell Barnes Cauthen, III, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Julio Cesar Esparza pled guilty to illegal reentry by a
deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (2000). The
district court sentenced Esparza to seventy-seven months’
imprisonment.1 Esparza filed a timely notice of appeal, and his
counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no meritorious issues for
appeal but requesting that we review the reasonableness of the
sentence imposed by the district court. Although notified of his
right to do so, Esparza did not file a pro se supplemental brief.2
After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), a
district court is no longer bound by the sentencing range
prescribed by the sentencing guidelines, which are now advisory.
See United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir. 2005). In
determining a sentence post-Booker, sentencing courts are required
to consider the correctly calculated guideline range and the
factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp.
2005). Id.
1
The district court sentenced Esparza to a concurrent
eighteen-month sentence resulting from the revocation of Esparza’s
supervised release from a 2002 conviction for possession of a
firearm by a prohibited person, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(5)(A) (2000). Esparza did not appeal the revocation or
the resulting sentence.
2
Although Esparza challenged counsel’s effectiveness in his
notice of appeal, that claim is more properly raised in a motion
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000).
- 2 -
Here, the district court correctly calculated Esparza’s
total offense level to be twenty-one and his criminal history
category to be VI. Based on these calculations, the sentencing
guidelines provided for a range of 77 to 96 months’ imprisonment.
See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual Ch. 5, Pt. A (sentencing
table). Treating the sentencing guidelines as advisory and
consulting the applicable § 3553(a) factors, the district court
sentenced Esparza at the bottom of this range, well below the
statutory maximum penalty of twenty years’ imprisonment. See 8
U.S.C. § 1326 (2000). Esparza has not rebutted the presumption
that the district court’s imposition of sentence was reasonable.
See United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir. 2006),
cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 2006 WL 1057741 (U.S. May 22, 2006) (No.
05-10474).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Esparza’s conviction and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform Esparza, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Esparza 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 Esparza.
- 3 -
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
- 4 -