UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5116
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOSE AGUIRRE-ARIZAGA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (CR-05-65)
Submitted: October 31, 2006 Decided: November 2, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Edward Quander, Jr., QUANDER & RUBAIN, P.A., Winston-Salem,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 Aguirre-Arizaga pled guilty to possession with
intent to distribute 487 grams of methamphetamine, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (2000). The district court sentenced
Aguirre-Arizaga to ninety months of imprisonment. Aguirre-
Arizaga’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in his view, there
are no meritorious issues on which to appeal Aguirre-Arizaga’s
sentence. Aguirre-Arizaga was informed of his right to file a pro
se supplemental brief but has not done so. We affirm.
In sentencing Aguirre-Arizaga, the district court
considered the properly calculated advisory sentencing guidelines
range and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000
& Supp. 2006). The sentence imposed is within the guideline range
and well below the forty-year statutory maximum set forth in 21
U.S.C.A. § 841(b)(1)(B) (West 1999 & Supp. 2006). Under these
circumstances, we find that Aguirre-Arizaga’s sentence is
reasonable. See United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th
Cir. 2006); United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.)
(stating that “a sentence imposed within the properly calculated
Guidelines range . . . is presumptively reasonable”) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct.
2309 (2006).
- 2 -
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record for any meritorious issues and have found none.
Accordingly, we affirm Aguirre-Arizaga’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 -