US v. Phani Raju Bhima Raju

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:13-cr-00079-RJC-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999516918].. [14-4349]

Appeal: 14-4349

Doc: 32

Filed: 01/26/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4349

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PHANI RAJU BHIMA RAJU,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:13-cr-00079-RJC-1)

Submitted:

January 22, 2015

Decided:

January 26, 2015

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sarah E. Bennett, TIN FULTON WALKER & OWEN, PLLC, Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Appellant.
Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant
United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4349

Doc: 32

Filed: 01/26/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Phani

Raju

Bhima

Raju

pled

guilty,

pursuant

to

a

written plea agreement, to a five-count criminal information in
which

he

was

charged

with

conspiracy

to

defraud

the

United

States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2012); presentation of
fraudulent immigration documentation and aiding and abetting the
same,

in

violation

of

18

U.S.C.

§§ 1546,

2

(2012);

unlawful

employment of at least ten unauthorized aliens within a one-year
period

and

U.S.C.

§§ 1324(a)(3)(A)

recruiting,

aiding

and

and

abetting

the

same,

(2012)

and

18

referring

for

a

fee

in

violation

U.S.C.

§ 2;

unauthorized

of

8

hiring,

aliens

for

employment, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(a)(1)(A), (f)(1)
(2012); and conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation
of

18

U.S.C.

§ 1956(h)

(2012).

At

sentencing,

the

district

court varied downward from the applicable Guidelines range of
57-71

months’

sentence.

imprisonment

and

imposed

a

forty-eight-month

This appeal timely followed.
Counsel has submitted an appellate brief pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), averring that there
are no meritorious issues for appeal but asking us to review the
propriety of the two-level obstruction of justice enhancement
that

was

imposed.

See

(“USSG”) § 3C1.1 (2013).

U.S.

Sentencing

Guidelines

Manual

The Government has declined to file a

2

Appeal: 14-4349

Doc: 32

Filed: 01/26/2015

response brief.

Pg: 3 of 4

For the reasons that follow, we affirm the

judgment.
We review any criminal sentence, “whether inside, just
outside,

or

significantly

reasonableness,
standard.”

“under

outside
a

the

Guidelines

deferential

range,”

for

abuse-of-discretion

United States v. King, 673 F.3d 274, 283 (4th Cir.

2012); see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46, 51 (2007).
When determining a sentence, the district court must calculate
the defendant’s advisory Guidelines range and consider it in
conjunction with the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2012).

Gall, 552 U.S. at 49–50.
The lone issue identified in counsel’s Anders brief

concerns the two-level obstruction of justice enhancement that
the district court adopted over Raju’s objection.

We review the

district court’s factual findings regarding an enhancement for
clear error and its legal conclusions de novo.

United States v.

Strieper, 666 F.3d 288, 292 (4th Cir. 2012).
To sustain this enhancement, the district court relied
on

the

(“PSR”),

relevant
which

facts

set

detailed

forth

some

of

in

the

Raju’s

presentence

efforts

to

fraudulent activities from investigating authorities.

report

mask

his

Although

defense counsel disputed the application of the enhancement, the
facts were not contested.
the

conduct

described

in

We agree with the district court that
the

PSR
3

—

which,

at

a

minimum,

Appeal: 14-4349

Doc: 32

established

an

investigation
§ 3C1.1

Filed: 01/26/2015

attempt

into

targets.

to

Raju’s
We

Pg: 4 of 4

obstruct

business

thus

—

discern

or

impede

is

the

no

the

sort

clear

ongoing

that

error

in

USSG
the

application of this enhancement. *
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.

This court requires that counsel inform Raju, in writing, of his
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.

If Raju requests that a petition be filed, but

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel

may

move

representation.

this

and

materials

legal
before

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Raju.
facts

court

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
AFFIRMED

*

Raju has submitted a pro se supplemental brief challenging
two other aspects of the computation of his Sentencing
Guidelines range and asserting that he received ineffective
assistance of counsel.
Neither of the sentencing issues has
merit, and the record does not conclusively demonstrate that
Raju’s attorney was ineffective.
Accordingly, the latter issue
should be raised, if at all, in a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2012).

4