UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4879
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROBERTO GIL GARCIA, a/k/a Don Beto,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior
District Judge. (1:05-cr-00354-WLO)
Submitted: May 31, 2007 Decided: June 4, 2007
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Carlyle Sherrill, III, SHERRILL & CAMERON, PLLC, Salisbury,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States
Attorney, Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Roberto Gil Garcia* appeals from his 128-month sentence
imposed following his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute
cocaine hydrochloride. Garcia’s attorney filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that the
sentencing court erred by imposing a higher than minimum sentence
based on Garcia’s failure to disclose his real name prior to the
presentence investigation. Garcia was advised of his right to file
a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. Our review of
the record discloses no reversible error; accordingly, we affirm
Garcia’s conviction and sentence.
We find that Garcia’s guilty plea was knowingly and
voluntarily entered after a thorough hearing pursuant to Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11. Garcia was properly advised of his rights, the
offense charged, and the mandatory minimum and maximum sentences
for the offense. The court also determined that there was an
independent factual basis for the plea and that the plea was not
coerced or influenced by any promises. See United States v.
DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991).
*
The judgment from which the appeal is taken, as well as the
dockets of both the district court and this court, show Appellant’s
name as Roberto Gil Garcia, a/k/a Don Beto. At sentencing, counsel
for the government informed the court that Appellant’s true name is
Alberto Lopez Lopez. We refer to Appellant as Roberto Garcia to be
consistent with the name used on the judgment from which the appeal
is taken.
- 2 -
Garcia argues that the sentence is unreasonable because
the district court considered his failure to provide his real name
as a sentencing factor when there had not been an adjustment for
obstruction of justice. We find that the district court properly
applied the Sentencing Guidelines and considered the relevant
sentencing factors before imposing the 128-month sentence. 18
U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006); see United States v.
Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005). Additionally, we
find that the sentence imposed—which was in the middle of the
properly calculated guideline range—was reasonable. See United
States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.) (“[A] sentence
imposed within the properly calculated [g]uidelines range . . . is
presumptively reasonable.”) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006). Accordingly, we
affirm Garcia’s sentence.
As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore
affirm Garcia’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
- 3 -
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 -