UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4373
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOSE BEATRIZ DUARTE-MARTINEZ, a/k/a Jose
Guadalupe Castro Delgado,
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. (1:05-cr-00332-NCT)
Submitted: August 24, 2006 Decided: August 29, 2006
Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, William C. Ingram,
Greensboro, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jose Beatriz Duarte-Martinez pled guilty to one count of
reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a),
(b)(1) (2000). The district court sentenced Duarte-Martinez to
seventy-one months of imprisonment. On appeal, counsel filed an
Anders* brief, in which he states that there are no meritorious
issues for appeal, but suggests that the district court imposed an
unreasonable sentence. Duarte-Martinez was advised of his right to
file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not filed a brief. We
affirm.
The district court sentenced Duarte-Martinez within the
applicable advisory Guideline range and well below the ten-year
statutory maximum set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1). We cannot
conclude that, under these circumstances, Duarte-Martinez’s
sentence is unreasonable. See United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d
339, 341 (4th Cir. 2006); United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457
(4th Cir.) (finding that sentence imposed within properly
calculated advisory Guideline range is presumptively reasonable),
cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Duarte-Martinez’s conviction and
sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Duarte-Martinez,
*
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
- 2 -
in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Duarte-Martinez 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 Duarte-Martinez. 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 -