UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4864
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ERROL ZELADA LOPEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:07-cr-00200-NCT-11)
Submitted: May 8, 2009 Decided: June 3, 2009
Before TRAXLER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Driver, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Errol Zelada Lopez pled guilty pursuant to a plea
agreement to one count of conspiracy to distribute 5 kilograms
or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846 (2006). The district court sentenced Lopez
to the minimum imprisonment term required by statute,
120 months. He now appeals. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there
are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether
the district court abused its discretion in sentencing Lopez.
Lopez has also filed a pro se supplemental brief. Finding no
error, we affirm.
We review a sentence for abuse of discretion. Gall v.
United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). The first step in
this review requires us to ensure that the district court
committed no significant procedural error, such as improperly
calculating the Guidelines range. United States v. Osborne,
514 F.3d 377, 387 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 2525
(2008). We then consider the substantive reasonableness of the
sentence imposed, taking into account the totality of the
circumstances. Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. When reviewing a
sentence on appeal, we presume that a sentence within a properly
calculated Guidelines range is reasonable. United States v.
Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007). Further, a
2
statutorily required sentence is per se reasonable. United
States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d 210, 224 (4th Cir. 2008).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the
district court did not err or abuse its discretion in sentencing
Lopez, and his sentence is reasonable. Lopez was subject to a
mandatory minimum prison term of ten years under 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(b)(1)(A). Although Lopez’s initial Guidelines range had
he not been subject to a statutory mandatory minimum sentence
would have been 108 to 135 months, the district court properly
took the mandatory minimum sentence into account and correctly
determined that Lopez’s Guidelines range was 120 to 135 months.
The court gave the parties an opportunity to argue for an
appropriate sentence in that range and heard allocution from
Lopez. The 120-month prison sentence Lopez received was within
the properly-calculated Guidelines range and the minimum
required by statute. Accordingly, we conclude that the district
court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Lopez.
Further, after review of Lopez’s pro se supplemental brief, we
conclude it does not raise any meritorious issues for appeal.
As required by 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
requires that counsel inform Lopez, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
3
review. If Lopez 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 Lopez. 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