US v. Torres-Moreno

Filing 920070817

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4262

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILFREDO TORRES-MORENO, a/k/a Wilson Maldonado Fuentes, a/k/a Manuel De Jesus, 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-00345-JAB)

Submitted:

August 3, 2007

Decided:

August 17, 2007

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette, Assistant Federal Public Defender, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Wilfredo Torres-Moreno appeals the seventy-six-month

sentence imposed by the district court after he pled guilty to illegally reentering the United States after being deported as an aggravated felon, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2000). Anders v. Torres-Moreno's California, counsel 386 U.S. filed 738 a brief (1967), pursuant to

challenging

Torres-Moreno's sentence but stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Torres-Moreno was informed of

his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. We affirm. Counsel questions whether Torres-Moreno's sentence is too long and suggests that a lower sentence would serve the ends of justice. In imposing a sentence after United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), a court still must calculate the applicable guideline range after making the appropriate findings of fact and consider the range in conjunction with other relevant factors under the guidelines and 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007). United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 432 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006). This court will affirm a

post-Booker sentence if it "is within the statutorily prescribed range and is reasonable." Id. at 433 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "[A] sentence within the proper advisory United States v.

Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable."

- 2 -

Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341 (4th Cir. 2006); see Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding application of rebuttable sentence). The district court sentenced Torres-Moreno only after considering § 3553(a) and examining as the sentencing by guidelines In well and the presumption of reasonableness to within-guidelines

factors,

instructed

Booker. is

addition, within the

Torres-Moreno's

seventy-six-month

sentence

twenty-year statutory maximum sentence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). Finally, neither Torres-Moreno nor the record suggests any

information so compelling that it rebuts the presumption that a sentence within the properly calculated guideline range is

reasonable. We therefore conclude that the sentence is reasonable. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record for any meritorious issues and have found none.

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

representation.

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

- 3 -

materials

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process. AFFIRMED

- 4 -