UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4664
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
OSCAR RIVERA CRUZ,
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. (1:05-cr-00354-WLO)
Submitted: November 20, 2007 Decided: November 28, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bryan Gates, Winston Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna
Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Sandra Jane Hairston,
Assistant 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Oscar Rivera Cruz appeals from his conviction and thirty-
three-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to
conspiracy to launder money. Cruz’s attorney filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that
there were no meritorious issues for appeal, but challenging the
reasonableness of the sentence. Cruz 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 Cruz’s conviction and sentence.
We find that Cruz’s guilty plea was knowingly and
voluntarily entered after a thorough hearing pursuant to Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11. Cruz was properly advised of his rights, the elements
of the offense charged, 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 thirty-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
find that the sentence imposed—which was within the properly
- 2 -
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 Cruz’s sentence.
As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore
affirm Cruz’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 -