UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4381
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOSE MIGUEL MATEO, a/k/a Alec Garcia
Rodriguez, a/k/a Santos Figueroa Santiago,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (1:05-cr-00290-JAB)
Submitted: September 6, 2006 Decided: September 20, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
C. David Whaley, MORCHOWER, LUXTON & WHALEY, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 Miguel Mateo pled guilty to one count of conspiracy
to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine hydrochloride in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2000). His attorney
filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), asserting there were no meritorious issues for appeal, but
claiming the sentence was greater than necessary because it was
above the statutory minimum. Mateo declined to file a pro se
supplemental brief. We affirm.
Mateo’s sentence was six months more than the statutory
minimum sentence of ten years’ imprisonment and near the low end of
the advisory guidelines. In imposing the sentence, the district
court properly calculated the guidelines range of imprisonment and
considered the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000).
We find the sentence reasonable. United States v. Green, 436 F.3d
449, 457 (4th Cir. 2006).
Pursuant to Anders, we have examined the entire record
and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm
Mateo’s conviction and sentence. This court requires counsel to
inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme
Court of the United States for further review. If the client
requests a petition be filed, but counsel believes 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
- 2 -
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 -