US v. Alvarado
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ABEL RIVERA ALVARADO, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:05-cr-00393-JAB)
Submitted: July 19, 2007
July 24, 2007
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
A. Wayne Harrison, Sr., LAW OFFICES OF A. WAYNE HARRISON, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Abel sentence Rivera he Alvarado appeals he from the seventy-six to month to
hydrochloride, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000).
counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 286 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), stating that there were no meritorious issues for appeal, but suggesting that the district court erred in sentencing Alvarado. Alvarado was advised of his right to file a pro se For the following
supplemental brief, but he has not done so. reasons, we affirm.
The district court sentenced Alvarado in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 224 (2005), and 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007). This Court reviews a post-
Booker sentence to determine whether the sentence is within the statutorily prescribed range and is reasonable. United States v.
Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 433 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006). A sentence within a properly-calculated advisory Rita v.
Sentencing Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. United States, U.S.
, 2007 WL 1772146 (U.S. June 21, 2007) (No.
06-5754); United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341-43 (4th Cir. 2006). Here, the district court correctly calculated the
sentencing range, treated the federal Sentencing Guidelines as advisory, as directed by Booker, considered the § 3553(a) factors,
- 2 -
and sentenced Alvarado in the middle of his advisory sentencing range. Thus, we find no error in sentencing.
We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with the requirements of Anders, and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client 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
Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof We dispense with oral argument because
was served on the client.
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
- 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?