UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4435
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RICARDO RAMIREZ-MONTES, a/k/a Alejandro Navarro-Barron,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(8:08-cr-01022-HFF-1)
Submitted: July 15, 2010 Decided: July 22, 2010
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. William Walter
Wilkins, III, United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina;
Maxwell B. Cauthen, III, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Ricardo Ramirez-Montes appeals from his 46-month
sentence imposed after pleading guilty to one count of illegal
reentry of a deported alien after conviction for an aggravated
felony in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006).
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are
no meritorious issues for appeal. Ramirez-Montes was notified
of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not
done so.
Upon review of the transcript of the Fed. R. Crim. P.
11 hearing, we conclude that the district court complied with
the requirements of Rule 11. Further, the district court
properly calculated the advisory Guidelines range and imposed a
sentence at the bottom of the applicable Guidelines range. The
record establishes that Ramirez-Montes’s sentence is
procedurally and substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007) (providing that
review of sentence is for abuse of discretion).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
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 his client, in writing,
of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States
2
for further review. If the client requests that a petition be
filed, but counsel believes that such filing 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