US v. Jaime Callejas-Uribe, No. 08-4811 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4811 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAIME CALLEJAS-URIBE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (5:05-cr-00061-gec-bwc-3) Submitted: December 23, 2009 Decided: January 7, 2010 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Allegra M.C. Black, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Christine Madeleine Spurell, Research and Writing Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Jean Barrett Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia; Ryan Lee Souders, Jeb Thomas Terrien, Assistant United States Attorneys, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Without a plea agreement, Jaime Callejas-Uribe pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine hydrochloride, in violation of 21 U.S.C. ยงยง 841(a)(1), 846 (2006). The district court sentenced him to ninety-six months in prison. Callejas- Uribe appeals. Counsel filed an Anders 1 brief, finding no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether the district court erred by imposing an upward variance sentence without giving Callejas-Uribe notice of its intention to do so. However, the Supreme Court has held that an upward variance does not require notice under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(h). Irizarry v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 2198 (2008). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. 2 We therefore This court writing, of affirm requires the Callejas-Uribe s that right to counsel inform petition the United States for further review. 1 conviction and sentence. Callejas-Uribe, Supreme Court of in the If Callejas-Uribe requests Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 2 Callejas-Uribe was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he did not file one. 2 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 Callejas-Uribe. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
