UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-5107
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ARNULFO RAFAEL SALCIDO-DEHUMA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (4:07-cr-00010-F-3)
Submitted: July 16, 2008 Decided: August 13, 2008
Before MICHAEL and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Slade C. Trabucco, SULLIVAN, TRABUCCO & WAGONER, LLP, Wilmington,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne M. Hayes, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Arnulfo Rafael Salcido-Dehuma (“Dehuma”) pled guilty,
without a written agreement, to conspiracy to distribute more than
fifty grams of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846
(2000), and to possession with the intent to distribute more than
fifty grams of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1) (2000). The district court sentenced Dehuma to 120
months’ imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently. Dehuma
timely appealed.
Dehuma’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning the
reasonableness of Dehuma’s sentence. Counsel states, however, that
he has found no meritorious grounds for appeal. Dehuma received
notice of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but did
not file one. Finding no meritorious grounds for appeal, we
affirm.
Here, counsel does not assert that the district court
erred in determining the applicable Guidelines range, and our
review of the record reveals no error. Dehuma was sentenced to the
statutory minimum term of imprisonment, and 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 the district court’s judgment. This court
- 2 -
requires that counsel inform Dehuma, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
If Dehuma 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 Dehuma.
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 -