UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4839
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JESUS SAN MIGUEL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (3:04-cr-00255-3)
Submitted: April 30, 2007 Decided: May 22, 2007
Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eugene J. Chandler, II, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North
Carolina, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jesus San Miguel pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement
to conspiracy with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841 (2000). San Miguel was sentenced to seventy
months’ imprisonment, the bottom of the sentencing guidelines
range, and he appealed. Appellate counsel has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting
there are no meritorious issues for appeal but suggesting the
district court erroneously failed to treat the sentencing
guidelines as advisory. San Miguel did not file a pro se
supplemental brief, despite being notified of his right to do so.
The Government declined to file a responding brief. Finding no
reversible error, we affirm.
After the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v.
Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), a sentencing court is no longer bound
by the range prescribed by the sentencing guidelines. See United
States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir. 2005). In
determining a sentence post-Booker, sentencing courts are required
to calculate and consider the applicable guideline range as well as
the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp.
2006). United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 432 (4th Cir.),
cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006). We will affirm a post-Booker
sentence if it “is within the statutorily prescribed range and is
reasonable.” Id. at 433 (internal quotation marks and citation
- 2 -
omitted). “[A] sentence within the proper advisory Guidelines
range is presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Johnson, 445
F.3d 339, 341 (4th Cir. 2006).
San Miguel’s sentence was within the sentencing
guidelines range of 70 to 87 months’ imprisonment and within the
statutory maximum of forty years’ imprisonment. The district court
appropriately treated the sentencing guidelines as advisory,
properly calculated the sentencing guidelines range, and considered
the relevant § 3553(a) factors. Therefore, we find the sentence
reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm San Miguel’s conviction and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform San Miguel, in writing, of the right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If San Miguel 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 San Miguel.
- 3 -
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
- 4 -