United States of America v. Rigoberto Tejeda Hernandez, a/k/a Chuckie

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4225
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RIGOBERTO TEJEDA HERNANDEZ, a/k/a Chuckie,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:06-cr-00353-RJC-7)
Submitted: December 16, 2008 Decided: December 22, 2008
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Scott Gsell, LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT GSELL, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United
States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

PER CURIAM:
Rigoberto Tejeda Hernandez pled guilty to conspiracy
to possess with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 846 (2006) and was sentenced to 87 months imprisonment.
Hernandez’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising one issue but stating
that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal.
Although informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental
brief, Hernandez has not done so.
Counsel questions whether the district court erred in
its assessment of a three-level enhancement under U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.1(c) (2002), for Hernandez’s
leadership role in the conspiracy. Our review of the record
leads us to conclude that the district court did not err in
applying the enhancement. In accordance with Anders, we have
reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no
meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Hernandez’s
conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel
inform Hernandez, in writing, of his right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If
Hernandez 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
2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Hernandez.
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 of 3 --