UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4256
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
HECTOR LOPEZ, a/k/a Eddy Antonio Rivera,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(6:06-cr-00503-HFF)
Submitted: September 26, 2007 Decided: October 10, 2007
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stephanie A. Rainey, RAINEY & BROWN, LLC, Spartanburg, South
Carolina, for Appellant. W. Walter Wilkins, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Hector Lopez pled guilty without a plea agreement to
conspiracy to possess five or more kilograms of cocaine, possession
of 500 grams or more of cocaine, being an illegal alien in
possession of a firearm, and possession of a firearm in furtherance
of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 992(g)(5)(A), 924(a)(2), 924(c)(1)(A) and 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), 846 (2000). The court
sentenced Lopez to 180 months in prison. Counsel filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising
one issue but stating that in her opinion, there are no meritorious
issues for appeal. Lopez was advised of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, and has done so. After reviewing the record,
we affirm.
Counsel raises the issue, which Lopez reiterates in his
pro se supplemental brief, that the district court erred in denying
his motion for a variance sentence. Lopez argues that he provided
assistance to the Government in obtaining the conviction of his co-
defendant. This court will affirm a sentence that 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 the proper advisory Guidelines
range is presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Johnson, 445
F.3d 339, 341 (4th Cir. 2006). The Supreme Court recently upheld
- 2 -
this presumption of reasonableness. Rita v. United States, 127 S.
Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007). Absent a government motion filed pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) (2000), the district court lacked authority
to sentence Lopez below the statutory mandatory minimum sentence.
See United States v. Allen, 450 F.3d 565, 568-69 (4th Cir. 2006).
Because Lopez’s 180-month sentence was the mandatory minimum
sentence, we find no error by the district court in declining to
grant a variance.
In Lopez’s pro se informal brief, he contends that the
district court erred in denying his motion to suppress. Lopez’s
voluntary plea of guilty waived his right to challenge such
antecedent, non-jurisdictional errors. See Tollett v. Henderson,
411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973). Therefore, Lopez may not challenge the
denial of the motion to suppress on appeal.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 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.
- 3 -
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
- 4 -