UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4866
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SERGIO MUJICA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Samuel G. Wilson,
District Judge. (5:09-cr-00015-sgw-1)
Submitted: July 29, 2011 Decided: August 16, 2011
Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John S. Hart, Jr., HART LAW OFFICES, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for
Appellant. Craig Jon Jacobsen, I, Assistant United States
Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sergio Mujica pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute
fifty grams or more of methamphetamine and 500 grams or more of
a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C § 846 (2006). The
district court imposed a 350-month within-Guidelines sentence.
His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious
issues for appeal but asking the court to review the district
court’s fact-finding at sentencing. Mujica filed a pro se
supplemental brief. ∗ We affirm.
An appellate court reviews a sentence for
reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). This review requires
consideration of both the procedural and substantive
reasonableness of a sentence. Id. First, the court must assess
whether the district court properly calculated the Guidelines
∗
Mujica asserts that the district court erroneously
included three of his convictions in his criminal history
calculation, improperly relied on hearsay evidence at
sentencing, and that his guilty plea was involuntary. Our
review of the record leads us to conclude that these claims lack
merit. To the extent Mujica contends that counsel told him he
could not prevail at trial and promised him a sentence of 120
months or less, ineffective assistance of counsel claims are not
cognizable here because the record does not conclusively
establish a right to relief. United States v. Richardson, 195
F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999).
2
range, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors,
analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and
sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. at 49-50; see
United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010). The
court also must consider the substantive reasonableness of the
sentence, “examin[ing] the totality of the circumstances to see
whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding
that the sentence it chose satisfied the standards set forth in
§ 3553(a).” United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216
(4th Cir. 2010). After reviewing the record with these
standards in mind, we conclude that Mujica’s sentence is both
procedurally and substantively reasonable.
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 Mujica, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Mujica 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 Mujica. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
3
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4