US v. Juan Lopez

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cr-00031-CCE-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998870395].. [11-5033]

Appeal: 11-5033

Doc: 38

Filed: 06/07/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-5033
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JUAN MANUEL LOPEZ, a/k/a Juan Lopez, a/k/a Juan Manuel Lopez
Medina,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:11-cr-00031-CCE-1)
Submitted:

May 23, 2012

Decided:

June 7, 2012

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alan Doorasamy, Sr., LAW OFFICE OF ALAN DOORASAMY, SR., WinstonSalem, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-5033

Doc: 38

Filed: 06/07/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Juan
imposed

by

the

Manuel

Lopez

district

appeals

court

the

following

270-month

sentence

a

plea

guilty

to

conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006).

Counsel has filed a brief

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating
that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning
whether the district court erred in granting the Government’s
U.S.

Sentencing

Guidelines

Manual

§ 5K1.1

(2010)

motion

and

awarding a fifteen percent reduction in sentence rather than the
twenty percent reduction requested by Lopez.

Lopez was informed

of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not
done so.

The Government has likewise declined to file a brief.

We affirm.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal.

We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.

To

the extent Lopez argues his dissatisfaction with the scope of
the district court’s departure, that decision is unreviewable on
appeal.

See United States v. Hill, 70 F.3d 321, 324 (4th Cir.

1995) (this court

cannot review “the extent of the district

court’s downward departure, except in instances in which the
departure decision resulted in a sentence imposed in violation

2

Appeal: 11-5033

of

Doc: 38

Filed: 06/07/2012

or

from

law

resulted

Pg: 3 of 3

an

incorrect

application

of

the

Lopez

in

Guidelines”).
This

court

requires

that

counsel

inform

writing of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United
States for further review.
filed,

but

counsel

If Lopez requests that a petition be

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 was served on Lopez.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

3