UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-5205
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JUAN CARLOS SORTO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (5:05-cr-00030-1)
Submitted: August 23, 2007 Decided: August 28, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lisa S. Costner, LISA S. COSTNER, P.A., Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Juan Carlos Sorto seeks to appeal his convictions and
123-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to conspiracy
to possess with intent to distribute at least fifty grams of
methamphetamine and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a
drug trafficking crime. Sorto’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Although notified of his
right to do so, Sorto has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.
After conducting a de novo review of the record as
required by Anders, we agree that there are no meritorious grounds
for appeal. We find that the district court conducted a thorough
colloquy pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and properly ascertained
that Sorto’s plea was knowing and voluntary. We also find that the
court sentenced Sorto within a properly calculated Guidelines
range, after granting the Government’s motion for a five-level
downward departure based on substantial assistance. To the extent
that counsel notes that Sorto voiced some concerns about trial
counsel prior to entering his guilty plea, we decline to address
any potential ineffective assistance of counsel claim as no
ineffective representation conclusively appears from the record.
See United States v. Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir.),
cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1203 (2006).
- 2 -
Accordingly, we affirm Sorto’s convictions and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform her 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 -