US v. Cruz
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus OSCAR RIVERA CRUZ, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Sr., Senior District Judge. (1:05-cr-00354-WLO)
November 20, 2007
November 28, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bryan Gates, Winston Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney; 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Oscar Rivera Cruz appeals from his conviction and thirtythree-month conspiracy sentence to launder imposed money. following Cruz's his guilty filed plea a to
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there were no meritorious issues for appeal, but challenging the reasonableness of the sentence. Cruz was advised of his right to Our
file a pro se supplemental brief, but has declined to do so.
review of the record discloses no reversible error; accordingly, we affirm Cruz's conviction and sentence. We find that Cruz's guilty plea was knowingly and
voluntarily entered after a thorough hearing pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. Cruz was properly advised of his rights, the elements
of the offense charged, and the maximum sentence for the offense. The court also determined that there was an independent factual basis for the plea and that the plea was not coerced or influenced by any promises. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 119We find that the plea was valid.
20 (4th Cir. 1991).
We find that the district court properly applied the Sentencing factors Guidelines and considered the relevant sentencing 18
U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007); see United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005). Additionally, we
find that the sentence imposed--which was within the properly
- 2 -
calculated guideline range--was reasonable.
See United States v.
Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.) ("[A] sentence imposed within the properly calculated [g]uidelines range . . . is presumptively reasonable.") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006); see also Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding application of rebuttable sentence). presumption of correctness of within-guideline
Accordingly, we affirm Cruz's sentence. As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. affirm Cruz's conviction and sentence.
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 We
must state that a copy thereof was served on the client.
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 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?