UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-5034
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ARISTEO MELGAREJO LOPEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (1:06-cr-00330-JAB)
Submitted: September 11, 2008 Decided: September 15, 2008
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David B. Freedman, CRUMPLER FREEDMAN PARKER & WITT, Winston-Salem,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Aristeo Melgarejo Lopez pled guilty to conspiracy to
distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. He was sentenced to
144 months of imprisonment. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief
under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), alleging that
there are no meritorious claims on appeal but raising the issue of
whether his sentence was reasonable. For the reasons that follow,
we affirm.
This court reviews the sentence imposed by the district
court for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard.
Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007); see United
States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). When
sentencing a defendant, a district court must: (1) properly
calculate the Sentencing Guidelines range; (2) treat the Guidelines
as advisory; (3) consider the factors set out in 18 U.S.C.A. §
3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2008); and (4) explain its reasons for
selecting a sentence. Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473. We presume that a
sentence within the properly calculated Guidelines range is
reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir.
2007); see Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007)
(upholding application of rebuttable presumption of correctness of
within-Guidelines sentence).
2
Here, the district court followed the appropriate
procedures and sentenced Lopez within the middle of his advisory
sentencing range. Thus, we find no abuse of discretion in its
imposition of the 144-month sentence, and therefore find that
Lopez’s sentence is reasonable. In accordance with the
requirements of Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case
and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
affirm. 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