UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-5055
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ARGELIO SAUCEDO RENTERIA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (1:06-cr-00111)
Submitted: April 26, 2007 Decided: April 30, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, William C. Ingram, Jr.,
First Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Argelio Saucedo Renteria pled guilty, pursuant to a plea
agreement, to possession of a short-barreled shotgun in furtherance
of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)
(2000). The district court sentenced Renteria to 120 months of
imprisonment. Renteria'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 for appeal but requests this
Court to review whether the district court imposed an unreasonable
sentence. Renteria was informed of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief but has not done so. We affirm.
Here, the statutory mandatory minimum set forth in 18
U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(B)(i) (2000) became the applicable guidelines
range. In sentencing Renteria, 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 the statutory mandatory minimum
sentence. Under these circumstances, absent a Government
substantial assistance motion, the district court lacked discretion
to impose a lesser sentence. See United States v. Robinson, 404
F.3d 850, 862 (4th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, Renteria’s sentence is
reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record for any meritorious issues and have found none.
- 2 -
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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 -