UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4264
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DANIEL DEJESUS URIOSTEGUI,
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. (1:08-cr-00175-JAB-2)
Submitted: July 19, 2010 Decided: July 29, 2010
Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher A. Beechler, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Daniel DeJesus Uriostegui timely appeals the 180-month
sentence imposed following his guilty plea to one count of
conspiracy to distribute cocaine hydrochloride, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006), and one count of possession of a firearm
in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) (2006). Uriostegui’s counsel filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal.
Uriostegui has not filed a pro se brief, though he was informed
of his right to do so.
In accordance with 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 Uriostegui, in writing, of his
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Uriostegui requests that a petition be
filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be
frivolous, counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw
from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy
thereof was served on Uriostegui. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal conclusions are adequately
2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3