US v. Olguin-Resendiz
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JUVENCIO OLGUIN-RESENDIZ, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (2:05-cr-01331-PMD)
Submitted: June 15, 2007
Decided: June 19, 2007
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Guy J. Vitetta, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Carlton R. Bourne, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Juvencio Olguin-Resendiz appeals from the 151-month
sentence he received after he pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. On
appeal, counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), alleging that there are no meritorious claims on appeal but raising the following issues, whether the district court erred by sentencing him: (1) based on facts not admitted by him, and (2) greater than necessary under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West Supp. 2007). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
The district court sentenced Olguin-Resendiz 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 United
Sentencing Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341-43 (4th Cir. 2006).
district court correctly calculated the sentencing range, treated the federal Sentencing Guidelines as advisory, as directed by Booker, considered the § 3553(a) factors, and sentenced OlguinResendiz at the bottom of his advisory sentencing range of 151-188
- 2 -
Thus, we find no error in sentencing and affirm Olguin-
Resendiz's sentence. 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 also affirm his conviction.
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?