UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-5063
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ORLANDO PINEDA-SANCHEZ, a/k/a Romualdo Garcia
Nava,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,
District Judge. (5:06-cr-00059)
Submitted: April 19, 2007 Decided: April 23, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Ethan Ainsworth Ontjes, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Orlando Pineda-Sanchez pled guilty pursuant to a plea
agreement to one count of conspiracy to distribute and to possess
with the intent to distribute more than five hundred grams of
cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000). Pineda-Sanchez
was sentenced by the district court to 121 months’ imprisonment.
Finding no error, we affirm.
On appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there were no
meritorious grounds for appeal, but arguing that the district court
erred in sentencing Pineda-Sanchez under a de facto mandatory
Guidelines system and in not taking into account all of the
sentencing factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000).
Although Pineda-Sanchez was notified of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, he did not do so, and the Government elected
not to file a responsive brief.
Initially, Pineda-Sanchez contends that the presumption
of reasonableness this court affords post-Booker* sentences imposed
within a properly calculated Guidelines range is unconstitutional.
This court’s precedent, however, forecloses this argument. See,
e.g., United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir.
2006), petition for cert. filed, __ U.S.L.W. __ (U.S. July 21,
2006) (No. 06-5439); United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341-42
*
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
- 2 -
(4th Cir. 2006); United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 433 (4th
Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006); United States v.
Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309
(2006). Because one panel of this court cannot overrule another,
we decline Pineda-Sanchez’s invitation to ignore established
circuit authority. United States v. Chong, 285 F.3d 343, 346-47
(4th Cir. 2002).
Pineda-Sanchez also contends that his sentence is
unreasonable as a presumptive Guidelines system prevents district
courts from considering all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
However, after Booker, sentencing courts are required to consider
the factors set forth in § 3553(a) as well as calculate and
consider the guideline range prescribed thereby. United States v.
Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir. 2005). The record reflects
that the district court complied with § 3553(a), and considered
Pineda-Sanchez’s personal history and circumstances in determining
his sentence. Although the district court did not explicitly
discuss every § 3553(a) factor on the record, it was not required
to “robotically tick through § 3553(a)’s every subsection.”
Johnson, 445 F.3d at 345.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of
- 3 -
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 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 in the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -