US v. Cruz, No. 07-4664 (4th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-4664 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus OSCAR RIVERA CRUZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Sr., Senior District Judge. (1:05-cr-00354-WLO) Submitted: November 20, 2007 Decided: November 28, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bryan Gates, Winston Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney; Angela Hewlett Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Oscar Rivera Cruz appeals from his conviction and thirtythree-month conspiracy sentence to imposed launder following money. Cruz s his guilty attorney plea filed a to brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there were no meritorious issues for appeal, but challenging the reasonableness of the sentence. Cruz was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has declined to do so. Our review of the record discloses no reversible error; accordingly, we affirm Cruz s conviction and sentence. We find that Cruz s guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered after a thorough hearing pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. Cruz was properly advised of his rights, the elements of the offense charged, and the maximum sentence for the offense. The court also determined that there was an independent factual basis for the plea and that the plea was not coerced or influenced by any promises. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 119- 20 (4th Cir. 1991). We find that the plea was valid. We find that the district court properly applied the Sentencing factors Guidelines before and imposing considered the the relevant thirty-three-month sentencing sentence. 18 U.S.C.A. ยง 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007); see United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005). Additionally, we find that the sentence imposed which was within the properly - 2 - calculated guideline range was reasonable. See United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.) ( [A] sentence imposed within the properly calculated [g]uidelines range . . . is presumptively reasonable. ) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006); see also Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding application of rebuttable sentence). presumption of correctness of within-guideline Accordingly, we affirm Cruz s sentence. As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. affirm Cruz s conviction and 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.
