UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4330
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JUAN DELGADO-AGUILAR, a/k/a Juan C. Delgado,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior
District Judge. (1:06-cr-00418-WLO)
Submitted: October 19, 2007 Decided: November 2, 2007
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James B. Craven, III, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna
Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Juan Delgado-Aguilar appeals from his conviction and
twenty-month sentence after pleading guilty to illegal reentry into
the United States after removal for an aggravated felony, in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2000). Delgado-Aguilar’s
counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious claims for
appeal, but raising the issue of whether Delgado-Aguilar’s sentence
was reasonable. Delgado-Aguilar was given an opportunity to file
a supplemental pro se brief, but has declined 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, courts must calculate the appropriate
guidelines range, making any appropriate factual findings. United
States v. Davenport, 445 F.3d 366, 370 (4th Cir. 2006). The court
then considers the resulting advisory guidelines range in
conjunction with the factors under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000
& Supp. 2007), and determines an appropriate sentence. Davenport,
445 F.3d at 370. 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. A sentence within the proper advisory
guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. United States v.
- 2 -
Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309
(2006); see Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456 (2007).
At sentencing, Delgado-Aguilar did not object to the findings
in his presentence report or to the sentencing guidelines range,
which was calculated at 27 to 33 months. The district court
imposed a variance sentence below the guidelines range, sentencing
Delgado-Aguilar to twenty months’ incarceration. The Government
did not object to the variance. On appeal, Delgado-Aguilar has
failed to demonstrate why his sentence is procedurally or
substantively unreasonable. The district court correctly
calculated the advisory guidelines range and considered the
relevant factors under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a). Therefore, we find
that the sentence imposed by the district court was not
unreasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this
case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore
affirm Delgado-Aguilar’s conviction and sentence. We deny
counsel’s motion to withdraw at this juncture. This court requires
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 -