UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4262
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WILFREDO TORRES-MORENO, a/k/a Wilson Maldonado
Fuentes, a/k/a Manuel De Jesus,
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-00345-JAB)
Submitted: August 3, 2007 Decided: August 17, 2007
Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Angela Hewlett Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Wilfredo Torres-Moreno appeals the seventy-six-month
sentence imposed by the district court after he pled guilty to
illegally reentering the United States after being deported as an
aggravated felon, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2)
(2000). Torres-Moreno’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging
Torres-Moreno’s sentence but stating that, in his view, there are
no meritorious issues for appeal. Torres-Moreno was informed of
his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so.
We affirm.
Counsel questions whether Torres-Moreno’s sentence is too
long and suggests that a lower sentence would serve the ends of
justice. In imposing a sentence after United States v. Booker, 543
U.S. 220 (2005), a court still must calculate the applicable
guideline range after making the appropriate findings of fact and
consider the range in conjunction with other relevant factors under
the guidelines and 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007).
United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 432 (4th Cir.), cert.
denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006). This court 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 omitted). “[A] sentence within the proper advisory
Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.” United States v.
- 2 -
Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341 (4th Cir. 2006); see Rita v. United
States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding application of
rebuttable presumption of reasonableness to within-guidelines
sentence).
The district court sentenced Torres-Moreno only after
considering and examining the sentencing guidelines and the
§ 3553(a) factors, as instructed by Booker. In addition,
Torres-Moreno’s seventy-six-month sentence is well within the
twenty-year statutory maximum sentence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2).
Finally, neither Torres-Moreno nor the record suggests any
information so compelling that it rebuts the presumption that a
sentence within the properly calculated guideline range is
reasonable. We therefore conclude that the sentence is reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record for any meritorious issues and have found none.
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
- 3 -
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -