US v. Renteria
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ARGELIO SAUCEDO RENTERIA, 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. (1:06-cr-00111)
April 26, 2007
April 30, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, William C. Ingram, Jr., First Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Argelio Saucedo Renteria pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to possession of a short-barreled shotgun in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2000). The district court sentenced Renteria to 120 months of Renteria's counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal but requests this Court to review whether the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence. Renteria was informed of his right to file a pro se We affirm.
supplemental brief but has not done so.
Here, the statutory mandatory minimum set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(B)(i) (2000) became the applicable guidelines range. In sentencing Renteria, the district court considered the
properly calculated advisory sentencing guidelines range and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006). The sentence imposed is the statutory mandatory minimum Under these circumstances, absent a Government
substantial assistance motion, the district court lacked discretion to impose a lesser sentence. See United States v. Robinson, 404
F.3d 850, 862 (4th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, Renteria's sentence is reasonable. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record for any meritorious issues and have found none.
- 2 -
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment.
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?