UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4049
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ELEAZAR GARCIA-OSORIO,
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-00273-JAB)
Submitted: July 31, 2007 Decided: August 15, 2007
Before MICHAEL and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr.,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
Eleazar Garcia-Osorio appeals his conviction and thirty-
month sentence following his guilty plea to one count of illegal
reentry of a previously deported aggravated felon, in violation of
8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2000). Garcia-Osorio’s counsel filed
a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967),
stating that there were no meritorious issues for appeal, but
suggesting that the district court erred in sentencing Garcia-
Osorio. The Government has declined to file a brief; Garcia-Osorio
was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but
elected not to do so.
This court reviews the imposition of a sentence for
reasonableness. United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 260-61
(2005); United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir.
2005). After Booker, a district court is no longer bound by the
range prescribed by the sentencing guidelines. Hughes, 401 F.3d at
546. However, in imposing a sentence post-Booker, courts still
must calculate the applicable guidelines range after making the
appropriate findings of fact and must consider the range in
conjunction with the factors set forth in 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.” Hughes, 401 F.3d at 546-47
- 2 -
(citation omitted). “[A] sentence within the proper advisory
[g]uidelines range is presumptively reasonable.” United States v.
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).
Here, the district court treated the guidelines as
advisory, and sentenced Garcia-Osorio only after considering the
sentencing guidelines, the § 3553(a) factors, and counsel’s
arguments. Garcia-Osorio’s thirty-month sentence is below the
twenty-year statutory maximum sentence, see 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2),
and is presumptively reasonable, as it is within the appropriate
guideline range. As neither Garcia-Osorio nor the record suggests
any information to rebut the presumption, we find that Garcia-
Osorio’s sentence is reasonable.
As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore
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
- 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 -