UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-5002
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JUVENCIO OLGUIN-RESENDIZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (2:05-cr-01331-PMD)
Submitted: June 15, 2007 Decided: June 19, 2007
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Guy J. Vitetta, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Carlton
R. Bourne, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Juvencio Olguin-Resendiz appeals from the 151-month
sentence he received after he pled guilty to conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. On
appeal, counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), alleging that there are no meritorious claims on
appeal but raising the following issues, whether the district court
erred by sentencing him: (1) based on facts not admitted by him,
and (2) greater than necessary under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West
Supp. 2007). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
The district court sentenced Olguin-Resendiz in light of
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 224 (2005), and 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007). This Court reviews a
post-Booker sentence to determine whether the sentence is within
the statutorily prescribed range and is reasonable. United States
v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 433 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct.
2054 (2006). A sentence within a properly-calculated advisory
Sentencing Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. United
States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341-43 (4th Cir. 2006). Here, the
district court correctly calculated the sentencing range, treated
the federal Sentencing Guidelines as advisory, as directed by
Booker, considered the § 3553(a) factors, and sentenced Olguin-
Resendiz at the bottom of his advisory sentencing range of 151-188
- 2 -
months. Thus, we find no error in sentencing and affirm Olguin-
Resendiz’s sentence.
We have examined the entire record in this case in
accordance with the requirements of Anders, and find no meritorious
issues for appeal. Accordingly, we also affirm his conviction.
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 -