US v. Daniel Uriostegui, No. 09-4264 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4264 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DANIEL DEJESUS URIOSTEGUI, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:08-cr-00175-JAB-2) Submitted: July 19, 2010 Decided: July 29, 2010 Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher A. Beechler, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Daniel DeJesus Uriostegui timely appeals the 180-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine hydrochloride, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006), and one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) (2006). Uriostegui s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Uriostegui has not filed a pro se brief, though he was informed of his right to do so. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court s judgment. requires that counsel inform Uriostegui, in This court writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further filed, review. but If counsel Uriostegui believes requests that such that a a petition petition would be be frivolous, counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. thereof was served Counsel s motion must state that a copy on Uriostegui. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conclusions are adequately 2 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.