UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4753
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MIGUEL DEPAZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
District Judge. (1:05-cr-00354-NCT)
Submitted: October 18, 2007 Decided: October 22, 2007
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jonathan William Bain Leonard, LEONARD LAW FIRM, Winston-Salem,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Miguel Depaz appeals from his conviction and sixty-three-
month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to conspiracy to
distribute cocaine. Depaz’s attorney filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the validity
of the plea and the reasonableness of the sentence. Depaz was
advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has
declined to do so. Our review of the record discloses no
reversible error; accordingly, we affirm Depaz’s conviction and
sentence.
We find that Depaz’s guilty plea was knowingly and
voluntarily entered after a thorough hearing pursuant to Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11. Depaz was properly advised of his rights, the
elements of the offense charged, the mandatory minimum, and the
maximum sentence for the offense. The court also determined that
there was an independent factual basis for the plea and that the
plea was not coerced or influenced by any promises. See United
States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). We find
that the plea was valid.
We find that the district court properly applied the
Sentencing Guidelines and considered the relevant sentencing
factors before imposing the sixty-three-month sentence. 18
U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007); see United States v.
Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005). Additionally, we
- 2 -
find that the sentence imposed—which was within the properly
calculated guideline range—was reasonable. See United States v.
Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.) (“[A] sentence imposed within
the properly calculated [g]uidelines range . . . is presumptively
reasonable.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted),
cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006); see also Rita v. United
States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding application of
rebuttable presumption of correctness of within-guideline
sentence). Accordingly, we affirm Depaz’s sentence.
As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore
affirm Depaz’s conviction and sentence. 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 -