UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4641
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RIGOBERTO HERNANDEZ-SANCHEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-04-475)
Submitted: January 11, 2006 Decided: August 10, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Rigoberto Hernandez-Sanchez appeals his conviction and
sixty-month sentence imposed following a guilty plea to illegal
reentry into the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§§ 1326(a), (b)(2) (2000). Hernandez-Sanchez’s attorney has filed
a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), raising three issues but stating that he finds no
meritorious grounds for appeal.* We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error.
Hernandez-Sanchez asserts that the district court erred
by failing to sustain his objection to a two-point increase in his
criminal history calculation for committing the offense of illegal
reentry into the United States while under a criminal justice
sentence. The record reflects, however, that Hernandez-Sanchez was
under a criminal justice sentence on the date he was “found in” the
United States, August 8, 2004. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(2). We
therefore find that the district court did not err in adding these
points pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.1(d)
(2004), in the calculation of Hernandez-Sanchez’s advisory
guideline range. In addition, the district court did not err in
declining to resolve an objection regarding one criminal history
point from a disputed South Carolina conviction because that single
*
The Government did not file an answering brief, and although
advised of his right to do so, Hernandez-Sanchez did not file a pro
se supplemental brief.
- 2 -
point did not affect Hernandez-Sanchez’s Criminal History Category.
Finally, the sixty-month sentence the district court imposed was
reasonable. See United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th
Cir. 2005).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Hernandez-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 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 -