US v. Perez-Mendez, No. 06-4345 (4th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-4345 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RAMON A. PEREZ-MENDEZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:03-cr-00341-WDQ) Submitted: October 31, 2006 Decided: November 14, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marc Gregory Hall, MARC G. HALL, P.C., Rockville, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Christopher J. Romano, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: This appeal is before the court after our limited remand for resentencing under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Ramon Perez-Mendez appeals the 168-month sentence imposed after his conviction for conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute heroin and cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000). Perez-Mendez s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there were no meritorious issues for appeal. Although he was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Perez-Mendez has not filed a brief. We find that the district court properly applied the guidelines sentencing reasonable. and that the sentence imposed is We therefore affirm the sentence. This court reviews the imposition of a sentence for reasonableness. Booker, 543 U.S. at 260-61; United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005). After Booker, courts must calculate the appropriate guideline range, making any appropriate factual findings. United States v. Davenport, 445 F.3d 366, 370 (4th Cir. 2006). The court then should consider the resulting advisory guideline range in conjunction with the factors under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006), and determine an appropriate sentence. Davenport, 445 F.3d at 370. If the sentence imposed is within the advisory guideline range, it will be presumed to be a reasonable sentence. - 2 - United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006). Here, applicable the guideline district range court and, properly after determined consideration of § 3553(a) factors, imposed a sentence within that range. that the resulting 168-month sentence is reasonable. States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d petition for cert. filed, 375, U.S.L.W. 380 (4th the the We find See United Cir. 2006), (U.S. July 21, 2006) (No. 06-5439); Green, 436 F.3d at 457. As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. affirm Perez-Mendez s sentence. We therefore 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 was served on the client. We 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. AFFIRMED - 3 -
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
