UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4596
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RUBEN GARCIA-ROSARIO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:09-cr-00205-RJC-1)
Submitted: February 21, 2012 Decided: February 23, 2012
Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eric A. Bach, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy
Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ruben Garcia-Rosario appeals his 240-month sentence
for attempted kidnapping of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1201(a)(1), (d), and (g) (2006). Garcia-Rosario’s counsel
has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), in which he states that he has divined no meritorious
grounds for appeal but requesting that we review Garcia-
Rosario’s guilty plea and sentence for error. Having reviewed
the record, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
Because Garcia-Rosario did not challenge the validity
of his guilty plea in the district court, we review it for plain
error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 524-27 (4th
Cir. 2002). Our review of the record convinces us that Garcia-
Rosario’s guilty plea was valid.
As for his sentence, we review it for reasonableness,
applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). In this case, as all parties
recognize, the district court simply sentenced Garcia-Rosario to
the only term of imprisonment permissible by law: twenty years.
See 18 U.S.C. § 1201(d) (twenty-year maximum for attempted
kidnapping); 18 U.S.C. § 1201(g) (twenty-year minimum for a
kidnapping offense involving a minor victim). It was eminently
reasonable for the district court to follow its statutory
obligation. Moreover, the twenty-year term of supervised
2
release was within the range prescribed by statute 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(k) (2006).
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 Garcia-Rosario, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Garcia-Rosario 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 Garcia-Rosario.
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