United States v. Zetino-Rivera

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
United States v. Zetino-Rivera, 267 F. App'x 238 (4th Cir. 2008)

United States v. Zetino-Rivera

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Jeremías Nathan Zetino-Rivera pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to one count of using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to, and possessing a firearm in furtherance of, a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2000). The district court sentenced Zetino-Rivera to the statutory minimum of sixty months of imprisonment. ZetinoRivera timely appealed.

On appeal, counsel has filed an Anders * brief, in which he states there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questions whether the district court acted unreasonably when it failed to consider the evidence offered by Zetino-Rivera in support of his motion for a variance below the statutory minimum sentence. Zetino-Rivera was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not filed a brief. The Government declined to file a brief. We affirm.

Zetino-Rivera’s sentence was the mandatory minimum sentence. The district court properly recognized that, absent a substantial assistance motion filed by the government pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(e) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007), it lacked authority to sentence Zetino-Rivera below the statutory mandatory minimum sentence. See United States v. Allen, 450 F.3d 565, 568-69 (4th Cir. 2006).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Zetino-Rivera’s con *239 vietion and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Zetino-Rivera, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Zetino-Rivera 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 Zetino-Rivera.

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.

*

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

Reference

Full Case Name
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeremias Nathan ZETINO-RIVERA, Defendant-Appellant
Status
Unpublished