US v. Parra-Montalvo, No. 05-5164 (4th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-5164 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALBERTO PARRA-MONTALVO, a/k/a Alberto ParraServantes, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-05-151) Submitted: June 15, 2006 Decided: June 19, 2006 Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael E. Archenbronn, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Angela Hewlett Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Alberto Parra-Montalvo appeals his conviction and seventy-two month sentence imposed following a guilty plea to conspiracy to hydrochloride, distribute a at violation 841(b)(1)(A) (2000). least of 21 five U.S.C. kilograms §§ of 846, cocaine 841(a)(1), Parra-Montalvo s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 739 (1967), raising the argument that the sentence was not reasonable, but stating that he finds no meritorious grounds for appeal. The Government did not file an answering brief, and although advised of his right to do so, Parra-Montalvo did not file a pro se supplemental brief. As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. district court sentenced Parra-Montalvo within the The properly calculated sentencing guidelines range, United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 455-56 (4th Cir. 2006), and considered the factors provided in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005). We find be Parra-Montalvo s reasonable. sentence of seventy-two months to We therefore affirm his conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Parra-Montalvo, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Parra-Montalvo requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition - 2 - 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 Parra-Montalvo. 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.
