UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4800
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ARIEL GIOVANI MOLINA-HERNANDEZ, a/k/a Jonathan Nol Terron,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:12-cr-00134-WO-1)
Submitted: March 28, 2013 Decided: April 1, 2013
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Todd Allen Smith, LAW OFFICE OF TODD ALLEN SMITH, Graham, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Clifton Thomas Barrett, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ariel Giovani Molina-Hernandez pled guilty to
violating the terms of his supervised release order and was
sentenced to twelve months of imprisonment to be served
consecutively with his fifty-seven-month sentence imposed on the
same day for other federal crimes. Molina-Hernandez’s counsel
filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), stating his opinion that there are no meritorious issues
for appeal, but questioning whether the district court properly
ran Molina-Hernandez’s sentence consecutive to his other federal
sentence. Molina-Hernandez was notified of his right to file a
pro se supplemental brief but has failed to do so. The
Government has declined to file a responsive brief. We affirm.
Because Molina-Hernandez was also serving a fifty-
seven-month federal sentence, the district court imposed his
twelve-month supervised release sentence to run consecutively,
as recommended by the Sentencing Guidelines. See U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 7B1.3(f), p.s. (2011)
(recommending a consecutive sentence for revocation of
supervised release when also serving another sentence).
Moreover, we note that Molina-Hernandez’s twelve-month sentence
was within his correctly calculated advisory Guidelines range
for a Grade B violation of his supervised release and his
criminal history category of II. See USSG § 7B1.4, p.s.
2
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Molina-Hernandez’s conviction and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform Molina-Hernandez, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Molina-Hernandez 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 Molina-Hernandez.
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