United States of America v. Julio Rodriguez-Fruitz, a/k/a Jose Huerta

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
No. 00-4178
JULIO RODRIGUEZ-FRUITZ, a/k/a Jose
Huerta,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.
William L. Osteen, District Judge.
(CR-99-239)
Submitted: July 14, 2000
Decided: August 2, 2000
Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr.,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, Sandra J.
Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Caro-
lina, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________

-- 1 of 2 --

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Julio Rodriguez-Fruitz pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to
distribute amphetamines, 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994) (Count One), and
one count of illegal reentry of a removed alien felon, 8 U.S.C.A.
§§ 1326(a), (b)(2) (1999) (Count Three). He received a sixty-month
sentence on Count One and a concurrent, ninety-two-month sentence
on Count Three. Rodriguez-Fruitz now appeals his sentence. We
affirm.
Our review of the presentence report and the sentencing transcript
discloses no error. The probation officer correctly determined that
Rodriguez-Fruitz's total offense level was 23. Because he was a
career offender, his criminal history category was VI. See U.S. Sen-
tencing Commission Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1 (1998). The result-
ing guideline range was 92-115 months.
Contrary to Rodriguez-Fruitz's argument on appeal, he did not
receive a ninety-two-month sentence on Count One. Rather, the dis-
trict court clearly sentenced him to the statutory maximum of five
years (sixty months) for that offense. His concurrent, ninety-two-
month sentence was for his conviction on Count Three. To the extent
that Rodriguez-Fruitz claims that he should have been treated as a
career offender only on the drug charge, which was unrelated to con-
viction for the immigration offense, he is mistaken. The guidelines
plainly state that "[a] career offender's criminal history category in
every case shall be Category VI." USSG § 4B1.1 (emphasis added).
We accordingly affirm the sentence. We dispense with oral argu-
ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately set forth
in the briefs and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2

-- 2 of 2 --