US v. Duarte-Martinez
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOSE BEATRIZ DUARTE-MARTINEZ, Guadalupe Castro Delgado, a/k/a Jose Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:05-cr-00332-NCT)
Submitted: August 24, 2006
Decided: August 29, 2006
Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, William C. Ingram, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Angela Hewlett Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM: Jose Beatriz Duarte-Martinez pled guilty to one count of reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1) (2000). The district court sentenced Duarte-Martinez to On appeal, counsel filed an
seventy-one months of imprisonment.
Anders* brief, in which he states that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but suggests that the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence. Duarte-Martinez was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not filed a brief. affirm. The district court sentenced Duarte-Martinez within the applicable advisory Guideline range and well below the ten-year statutory maximum set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1). conclude that, under these circumstances, We cannot We
sentence is unreasonable.
See United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d
339, 341 (4th Cir. 2006); United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.) (finding that sentence imposed within properly
calculated advisory Guideline range is presumptively reasonable), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (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 Duarte-Martinez's conviction and
sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Duarte-Martinez,
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). - 2 -
in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Duarte-Martinez 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 We dispense with contentions are
a copy thereof was served on Duarte-Martinez. oral argument because the facts and legal
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
- 3 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?