UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4397
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CARLOS VEGA, a/k/a Misa, a/k/a Misael Mendez,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (3:08-cr-00590-CMC-12)
Submitted: July 14, 2010 Decided: July 27, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andrew R. Mackenzie, BARRETT & MACKENZIE, LLC, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellant. James Chris Leventis, Jr., OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Mark C. Moore, Stanley Duane
Ragsdale, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Carlos Vega appeals his 240 month sentence imposed
upon his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute and possess
with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine,
fifty grams or more of cocaine base, and a quantity of
marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A),
and 841(b)(1)(D) (2006) (Count 1), and possession with intent to
distribute and distribution of marijuana, in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(D) (Count 43). Vega’s
attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious issues
on appeal, but contending the district court erred in enhancing
Vega’s sentence pursuant to 21 U.S.C § 851 (2006), in violation
of Vega’s Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. Though
informed of his right to do so, Vega has not filed a pro se
supplemental brief, and the Government has declined to file a
brief. We affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness under an
abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 50 (2007). When determining whether a sentence is
reasonable, the district court’s legal conclusions are reviewed
de novo, while factual findings are reviewed for clear error.
United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007).
“Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that
2
increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed
statutory minimum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond
a reasonable doubt.” Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490
(1967). However, in compliance with Apprendi, judges may find
facts increasing the mandatory minimum sentence faced by a
defendant, so long as the sentence remains below the statutory
maximum. See Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545, 565 (2002).
After reviewing the record, we find that the district court did
not err in enhancing Vega’s sentence due to Vega’s prior felony
drug conviction.
We have reviewed the record in accordance with Anders,
and find that there are no meritorious issues for appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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
expressed in the materials before the court, and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3