UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4498
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CARLOS JOSE JONES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (1:05-cr-00031-3)
Submitted: May 10, 2007 Decided: May 14, 2007
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brian Oglesby, Ellenboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy
Elizabeth Ray, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Carlos Jose Jones pled guilty pursuant to a plea
agreement to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1);
846 (2000). Jones was sentenced by the district court to 151
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
committed reversible error by sentencing Jones to 151 months’
imprisonment rather than 130 months’ imprisonment. Jones was
informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but did
not do so, and the Government elected not to file a responsive
brief.
Jones was assigned an offense level of twenty-eight, and
placed in criminal history category V. His resulting advisory
guideline range was 130 to 162 months. See U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual Ch. 5, Pt. A (2005) (sentencing table). The
district court properly calculated and considered the advisory
guideline range and weighed the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000)
factors. Jones’s 151-month sentence was both below the statutory
maximum and within the advisory guideline range. Thus, we conclude
the district court did not err in imposing its sentence. See
United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005).
- 2 -
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
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
- 3 -