Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 10 views

    United States v. Estrada, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case involving two defendants, Andres Estrada and Primitivo Abeja Vega, who were convicted of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. Their attorneys filed Anders briefs claiming no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning the reasonableness of the defendants' sentences. The court found that the sentencing guidelines were properly calculated and that the sentences at the low end of the guidelines range were reasonable. The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, and required counsel to inform their clients of their right to petition the Supreme Court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Estrada, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    10 views4 pages
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case involving two defendants, Andres Estrada and Primitivo Abeja Vega, who were convicted of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. Their attorneys filed Anders briefs claiming no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning the reasonableness of the defendants' sentences. The court found that the sentencing guidelines were properly calculated and that the sentences at the low end of the guidelines range were reasonable. The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, and required counsel to inform their clients of their right to petition the Supreme Court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2007-07-20 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 06-4484

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case involving two defendants, Andres Estrada and Primitivo Abeja Vega, who were convicted of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. Their attorneys filed Anders briefs claiming no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning the reasonableness of the defendants' sentences. The court found that the sentencing guidelines were properly calculated and that the sentences at the low end of the guidelines range were reasonable. The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, and required counsel to inform their clients of their right to petition the Supreme Court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    10 views4 pages

    United States v. Estrada, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case involving two defendants, Andres Estrada and Primitivo Abeja Vega, who were convicted of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. Their attorneys filed Anders briefs claiming no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning the reasonableness of the defendants' sentences. The court found that the sentencing guidelines were properly calculated and that the sentences at the low end of the guidelines range were reasonable. The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, and required counsel to inform their clients of their right to petition the Supreme Court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 4

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 06-4484

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    ANDRES ESTRADA,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    No. 06-4804

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    PRIMITIVO ABEJA VEGA, a/k/a Roberto Lopez,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief
    District Judge. (1:05-cr-00363-JAB)

    Submitted:

    July 11, 2007

    Decided:

    July 20, 2007

    Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    John A. Dusenbury, Jr., OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER,


    Greensboro, North Carolina; Benjamin D. Porter, MORROW, ALEXANDER
    & PORTER, PLLC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellants.
    Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Randall Stuart Galyon,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    - 2 -

    PER CURIAM:
    In

    these

    consolidated

    appeals,

    Andres

    Estrada

    and

    Primitivo Abeja Vega appeal their convictions and sentences for


    conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine in
    violation of 21 U.S.C. 846 (2000).

    On appeal, counsel filed a

    brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),


    claiming there are no meritorious issues on appeal, but raising the
    question

    of

    whether

    the

    sentences

    were

    reasonable.

    Appellant filed a pro se supplemental brief.

    Neither

    Finding no error, we

    affirm.
    We find Appellants ranges of imprisonment were properly
    calculated under the Sentencing Guidelines.

    Thus, their sentences

    at the low end of the Guidelines range of imprisonment were


    reasonable.

    United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341 (4th Cir.

    2006).
    Pursuant to Anders, we have examined the entire record
    and find no meritorious issues for appeal.
    the convictions and sentences.

    Accordingly, we affirm

    We require counsel to inform the

    clients, in writing, of their right to petition the Supreme Court


    of the United States for further review.

    If a client requests a

    petition be filed, but counsel believes such a petition would be


    frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to
    withdraw from representation.

    Counsels motion must state that a

    copy thereof was served on the client.

    - 3 -

    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 in the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED

    - 4 -

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy