UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4427
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CUAUHTEMOC VILLA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Sr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:06-cr-00434-WLO-1)
Submitted: November 15, 2007 Decided: November 21, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
C. Scott Holmes, BROCK, PAYNE & MEECE, P.A., Durham, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Cuauhtemoc Villa appeals his conviction and the seventy-
month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of
conspiracy to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(b)(1)(A) (2000). On appeal,
counsel filed an Anders1 brief, in which he states there are no
meritorious issues for appeal, but questions whether the sentence
was reasonable. Villa was advised of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief but has not filed a brief. We affirm.
We review a district court’s sentence for reasonableness.
United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005).
“Consistent with the remedial scheme set forth in United States v.
Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), a district court shall first calculate
(after making the appropriate findings of fact) the range
prescribed by the guidelines.” Hughes, 401 F.3d at 546. Counsel
does not assert that the district court erred in determining the
applicable Guidelines2 range, and our review of the record reveals
no error. Next, the district court must consider the Guidelines
range in conjunction with other relevant factors under the
Guidelines and 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007), and
impose a sentence. “A sentence within the proper advisory
Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.” United States v.
1
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
2
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2006).
- 2 -
Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341-42 (4th Cir. 2006); see Rita v. United
States, 127 S. Ct. 2456 (2007) (upholding presumption). If a court
imposes a sentence outside the Guidelines range, the court must
state its reasons for doing so. Hughes, 401 F.3d at 546. The
sentence must be “within the statutorily prescribed range and . . .
reasonable.” Id. at 546-47 (citations omitted). In this case,
Villa was sentenced below the applicable statutory range but within
the Guidelines range that resulted after application of the safety
valve provisions of USSG §§ 2D1.1(b)(9) and 5C1.2. We conclude
that his sentence is reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Villa’s conviction and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform Villa, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
If Villa 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 Villa.
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 -