UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4250
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DANIEL SOLIS-GARZA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (9:06-cr-00158-SB)
Submitted: January 15, 2009 Decided: January 21, 2009
Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anna Aita, LAW OFFICES OF AITA & MURPHY, Glen Burnie, Maryland,
for Appellant. Carlton R. Bourne, Jr., Eric John Klumb,
Assistant United States Attorneys, Charleston, South Carolina;
Reginald I. Lloyd, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Solis-Garza pled guilty, pursuant to a written
plea agreement, to conspiracy to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C.
§ 846 (2006) and was sentenced to thirty months imprisonment.
Solis-Garza’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in her view,
there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning
whether the district court properly accepted Solis-Garza’s
guilty plea and whether the district court abused its discretion
in sentencing him. Although advised of his right to file a
supplemental pro se brief, Solis-Garza has not done so.
Our review of the record discloses that Solis-Garza’s
guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered after a
thorough hearing pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. Solis-Garza
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 therefore find that the plea was valid.
Counsel next questions whether the district court
abused its discretion in imposing a thirty-month sentence. This
court will affirm a sentence imposed by the district court as
long as it is within the statutorily prescribed range and is
2
reasonable. United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 547 (4th
Cir. 2005). In assessing the reasonableness of the sentence, we
focus on whether the district court abused its discretion in
imposing the sentence. United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468,
473 (4th Cir.2007). We first examine the sentence for
significant procedural errors, and then look at the substance of
the sentence. Id.
We find that Solis-Garza’s sentence is both
procedurally sound and substantively reasonable. The district
court properly calculated the Guidelines range (seventy to
eighty-seven months imprisonment) and considered that range in
conjunction with the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2006). Because Solis-Garza’s sentence was below the statutory
maximum of twenty years and below the bottom of the advisory
guidelines range, we find that the sentence is reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record for any meritorious issues and have found none.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. This
court requires that counsel inform her 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
3
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
4